MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No.3 (Deputy Speaker), Sylvia Heal, The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the table.

Orders of the Day

Fireworks Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill Tynan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Before I outline the main problems with fireworks and how the Bill would respond to them, I pay tribute to those who have tried to respond to public concerns over the past decade and change the way in which we deal with fireworks. The last successful private Member's Bill on fireworks was in the 1963–64 Session, so I approach this Bill with trepidation. The fireworks debate has obviously moved on at a considerable pace since then. In response to public concern, a statutory instrument was laid before the House in 1997 under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, but the Act's narrow scope limits what we can deliver on changes to fireworks legislation. The Bill would provide the opportunity for regulation to be laid before the House.
	The fireworks issue has become more important for the general public over the past few years. Many hon. Members have responded in different ways and many of them wanted to sponsor the Bill. I am grateful for the cross-party sponsors and apologise to those who were unable to add their names to the list because of the limited number of Members who can sponsor a Bill. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber demonstrates the public interest in the Bill and the concerns that our constituents have expressed over many years. I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters. Yesterday, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association successfully lobbied and spoke to many hon. Members.

Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Tynan: When I have made some progress.
	There is wide interest in the issue in the UK. Some 300,000 signatures have been delivered to No. 10 over the past six months, and four petitions on fireworks were presented this week. When I decided to pursue a Bill on fireworks, I had the benefit of the experience of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), which, unfortunately, failed. She was lucky, however, in that there was no discussion on Second Reading and only one hour was spent on it in Committee. It was only when it was in the House of Lords that concern was expressed about its width and scope. The Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that it did not "inappropriately delegate legislative power". Having examined that Bill and discussed the way forward, I felt that we needed to be as inclusive as possible.
	I met various organisations, including the fireworks task group of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I corresponded with and consulted other groups that had expressed tremendous support, such as the TUC, the British Medical Association, the National Farmers Union, the Windermere campaign for fireworks control, the main groups representing trading standards officers and the national campaign for fireworks safety. If I have inadvertently left out an organisation or individual, it is because the consultation was so wide-ranging. Many groups in a large number of local authorities also offered their support. Yesterday, we were lobbied by people from Salford, who said that they support the Bill. I must also thank the all-party parliamentary group on fireworks for its guidance, help and support over the past few months.
	Starting from day one, I announced my intention that my Fireworks Bill would be as consensual as possible. I met representatives of the British Fireworks Association, the British Pyrotechnists Association and the explosives industry group of the CBI to discuss issues, exchange information and learn about the industry to reach, if possible, a consensus on the Bill's content. The assistance, support and advice from everyone has been extremely gratifying. I listened intently on the last Friday that a private Member's Bill was discussed and heard the clear message that such Bills should be simple and brief. This Bill is neither simple nor brief, but hon. Members and the general public demand it.
	The COSLA fireworks task group published an excellent report last October. It is the most comprehensive report on fireworks in the past 25 years. I pay tribute to how well informed, wide-ranging and meaningful the recommendations are that emanated from six months of consultation and inquiry, involving all interested parties. I am proud to base many of my proposals and my speech on the evidence collected by the task group and the suggestions that it made.
	The COSLA fireworks task group was established in 2001. Many local authorities throughout Scotland received unprecedented complaints about fireworks that covered a diverse range of issues, from general antisocial behaviour to cruelty, abuse of animals and, most commonly, noise.

Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Bill Tynan: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the general nuisance caused by fireworks, and he is absolutely correct. He mentioned guide dogs for the blind. Is he aware of the permanent trauma that fireworks inflict on them, which costs between £150,000 and £200,000 a year of public money donated to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association? More to the point, that means that some six blind people—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Bill Tynan: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come on to the problems caused to guide dogs.
	Many people have complained to councils that fireworks are getting louder and more intimidating, and that their use is becoming increasingly antisocial. The remit of the task group was to identify the changes needed to the legislative framework governing the sale and use of fireworks, to consider and to recommend the means by which the changes could be secured, and to consider recommendations through which public concerns could be addressed. It began by examining the current legislative position on storage of fireworks, their sale and supply, and their use and abuse—issues on which I shall expand later. It considered noise issues, the legal definition of fireworks, the different categories under British standard 7114—including indoor, garden, display and professional—and the injury statistics associated with firework misuse.
	The task group examined the case for change from a number of viewpoints. All 22 Scottish local authorities that responded favour tighter controls; indeed, six favoured an outright consumer ban. The Association of Chief Police Officers was of the opinion that fireworks misuse has escalated significantly, resulting in its becoming a serious community problem that causes considerable annoyance to the general public and affects the quality of life in local communities. The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association expressed concern about the increasing misuse of fireworks, and about the need to strengthen the current system; indeed, it has offered its support for this Bill. The society of chief officers of trading standards voiced particular concerns about the problems of storage and supply. The SSPCA reported that 90 per cent. of vets who responded to its survey had treated animals for injuries resulting from the misuse of fireworks.
	Public opinion submissions from community groups and voluntary organisations demonstrated the serious nature of many of the incidents, including arson, physical attack and the abuse of the most vulnerable. The task group also met many of the industry representatives whom I have met, such as Martin Guest of Black Cat Fireworks, who was particularly concerned about the illegal importing of fireworks.
	The task group then looked at the current legislative framework and the Explosives Act 1875 in particular. The storage of fireworks is covered by that Act, which, with input from the explosives industry group, is being reviewed by the Health and Safety Executive. It will consider the storage of larger quantities under the terms of the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. A report is due in 2004. As I shall explain, storage of quantities of less than 1 tonne of fireworks is currently inadequate, so this is a sensible moment to introduce the Bill, and to work alongside the changes planned under the manufacturing storage explosives regulation. The report looked at the voluntary code, and it is just that: a voluntary agreement between the Department of Trade and Industry and the fireworks industry on how certain fireworks are sold. The agreement reached in the autumn on a ban on air bombs is to be welcomed, but it is just not working. In addition to differences of interpretation about the sales period, it is not possible to enforce the code. Indeed, the main industry groups have been advised that attempting to enforce the code on their members and on those who supply could be interpreted as uncompetitive conduct by the Office of Fair Trading.
	Soon after the air bomb ban was unveiled, internet messages from firework forums noted that the agreement was only voluntary, and that a business opportunity had therefore been created for the irresponsible. In the light of this, and having considered all the options, the COSLA report came down firmly in favour of the need for new firework regulations.
	Having touched on some of the problems relating to fireworks, I should like to discuss some of them at greater length. The first problem is licensing and storage. For a payment of some £13, an annual licence to permit storage of quantities of fireworks suitable for sale can be obtained. Local authorities or fire authorities in metropolitan areas cannot refuse to grant a licence, and have no powers to revoke one. Although selling illegal fireworks, selling fireworks to minors, or engaging in improper storage or sales practices may be offences in themselves, they cannot lead to a licence being revoked.
	The second problem is noise and nuisance. There is a general perception that fireworks are getting louder, and that they are now being used year-round and later at night. Fireworks have become a part of weddings and birthdays, and I have even seen them advertised for Valentine's day. I did not buy any, by the way. A European standard of 120 dB has been proposed, and is being considered. The recent report from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, entitled "Quiet Please", has argued for lower noise levels.
	In discussing this issue, I am conscious of the need to consult all interested parties, which I hope might lead to agreement on appropriate noise levels for fireworks. There is also increasing concern about the use of fireworks by those engaged in the wider problem of antisocial behaviour. The use of fireworks to destroy bins and post boxes, and in attacks on cars, has been reported in my constituency.
	The third problem is injuries to humans and to animals. Statistics show that the 1997 regulations and the emergency regulations that preceded them arrested the steady increase in firework injuries, but in the past five years the figures have been increasing rapidly. It should of course be noted that the figures apply only to the four-week period around 5 November, and as such the injuries caused by increased, year-round use—including the death that occurred in 2001–02 new-year period—are not included.
	There has been increasing focus on the injuries caused to animals. Animal charities have reported deliberate attacks on domestic and farm animals.

David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the private Member's Bill ballot, and on introducing such a worthwhile Bill, which most people in the UK will undoubtedly want to see on the statute book as soon as possible. Will he clarify whether it will give the police and the courts the power to deal with unscrupulous shopkeepers who indiscriminately sell fireworks to young people for a profit, in the knowledge that they will cause misery to many people and animals, and to society as a whole?

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he will allow me to continue, my speech will respond adequately to his question.

Linda Perham: The London training centre for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is in my constituency. As my hon. Friend said, that organisation is very concerned about the waste of expensive training, as well as the stress imposed on animals. He will doubtless confirm that the Bill will give better protection to animals than that provided under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

Bill Tynan: I can only agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
	The National Farmers Union and the British Horse Society have logged incidents for a number of years, and both the Blue Cross and the SSPCA have campaigned on the issue of animal protection. Each year, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, with which I have worked closely in the past few months, has to retire as many as four dogs, and provide additional training for up to another 150, at a cost of £27,000 per dog. If we were to target only that issue, the Bill would still prove extremely worth while.

Bob Blizzard: I should tell my hon. Friend that the blind people from my constituency who visited Parliament yesterday, with their guide dogs, are extremely grateful to him for introducing this Bill, and they expect the House to ensure that it has a speedy passage.

Bill Tynan: When my hon. Friend goes back to his constituency, he will have the comfort of knowing that the Bill has been supported by all sections of the House.
	A final area of concern is importation. Only one company—Kimbolton Fireworks—manufactures fireworks in the UK. I have visited it to see the process for myself and to discuss these issues with the son of the owner. I spent a considerable time there. I am told that about 1,000 containers of fireworks are imported to the UK annually, mainly from the far east, of which the majority go to legitimate UK fireworks companies, where they are stored on premises licensed by the Health and Safety Executive. The industry estimates, however, that up to 13 per cent. of fireworks that come into this country are not stored in HSE-licensed premises. Containers can sometimes be driven to a lay-by—or who knows where?—where the contents are divided for distribution by rogue retailers. Companies that transport fireworks to safe and secure premises licensed and inspected by the HSE are required to have marked vehicles that are driven by trained drivers. Those who flout the law, although needing import licences, can remove containers from the port without having to confirm that they are being transported in the correct manner to licensed storage.

John Robertson: Does that mean that, if someone drives up to a dock in a white van, loads it up with £25,000 of fireworks, drives it to the House of Commons, parks it and then lights the blue touch paper, the only time that he breaks the law is when he lights the blue touch paper?

Bill Tynan: My hon. Friend has read my speech.
	The industry has serious concerns about the importation of fireworks to this country. It is acknowledged that HSE-licensed premises are not a problem. However, I decided to test the Department of Trade and Industry—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not surprised by that. I asked a friend to write an application from a private house on a sheet of A4. He sent away the form and the reply asked him to convert his figure of £25,000 to euros. He did so. He was then asked to say where the fireworks were coming in. "Felixstowe", he said. He was told that he would have to give the date. He then asked, "I haven't got the date, but can I not have the licence?" He was told that there was no problem with getting the licence but that he would have to give the date. It is therefore obvious that anyone can make an application. There are no checks that the fireworks will go to licensed premises. We have to address that in this Bill.
	When preparing for this Second Reading, I wrote to the Serjeant at Arms to ask about the possibility of bringing fireworks into the House of Commons. I was told that I would need a responsible person. [Laughter.] I was told that I would need to carry the fireworks in a closed steel container and that I would have to have a police escort while they were on the premises. That demonstrates the level of security in the House of Commons, but it also highlights the converse situation with the importation of fireworks to the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is right. Any organisation that fills in an import licence application can find itself with a container of fireworks that it can drive wherever it wishes. That has to be tightened up.

Lindsay Hoyle: There is great concern about the storage of fireworks. Mine is one of the few constituencies that has a licence for explosives, but that does not cover fireworks. Many hon. Members will have seen huge car boot sales in their constituencies at which huge amounts of fireworks can be sold without containers. Will the Bill outlaw such sales?

Bill Tynan: It is essential that we are able to track the supply of fireworks to this country and within this country. If we do not do that, we will end up in the situation that my hon. Friend describes. Fireworks can be sold in pubs, clubs, car boot sales or wherever. We have to deal with rogue retailers, and the way to do that is through this Bill. I expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to implement appropriate measures.

Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. We also thank the Home Secretary for being in the Chamber for the first discussions on the Bill, showing how seriously it is being taken.
	The hon. Gentleman has spoken about importation. There have been increased sales of fireworks from the far east via the internet for private use. Will the Bill deal with that issue, about which activists in my constituency—including Mrs. Marjorie Johnston, who has led the campaign—are concerned?

Bill Tynan: The Bill makes it clear that consultation is necessary on a range of issues. When that consultation takes place, people will have the opportunity to have an input.
	I have clear expectations of the firework regulations that this Bill will introduce. I foresee a new regime whereby we respect fireworks as the explosives that they are but acknowledge their legitimate use. Powers would be granted to allow firework regulations to be made in a range of areas—such as the life of fireworks, import, storage, sale and use.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill that is long overdue to say the least. Later in his speech, will he touch on the problem of enforcement?

Bill Tynan: I hope that, as I go through the Bill, my hon. Friend will be reassured on that point.
	The aim of the Bill is to provide an effective and comprehensive solution. Now that I have outlined the problems that the Bill seeks to address, I hope that hon. Members will have some concept of its aims. I hope that this is not presumptuous, but I do not propose to detain the House with an extended clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill. I trust that that can wait until another day.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Bill Tynan: This is an ideal time for my hon. Friend—I mean the hon. Gentleman—to contribute to the debate.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman was right the first time.
	I am entirely sympathetic to his objectives but, given the extensive regulatory powers that he seeks to give Ministers, what can he say to reassure me about the survival of the firework party held by law-abiding citizens who seek to entertain their children in their back garden?

Bill Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was very helpful. I think that I can reassure him. The Bill is similar to the Bill that went through the House of Lords in 1997–98. At that time, reassurance was sought on the width and scope of the Bill. That convinced the House of Lords to send the Bill back, unamended, to the House of Commons. My Bill will seek to allow the participation of people such as the hon. Gentleman who wish to let off fireworks for their grandchildren—I am sorry, for their children. [Laughter.] I am sure that he will be delighted to be able to do so.
	Clause 1 establishes the definition of fireworks. I do not intend that the Bill should extend to items such as pyrotechnic bird-scarers, small explosive charges for car airbags, amateur rocket motors or marine distress flares. I have been asked to give assurances to groups that use such devices. They are not currently classed as fireworks, and that will continue.
	Clause 2 grants powers to enable firework regulations to be made, and outlines the grounds on which they can be made. Included are protections for humans, animals and property, and a requirement to consult interested and relevant groups before making regulations. However, the scope for making emergency provisions—as happened in 1996—continues to be included.
	Clause 3 would ban sales to minors. The intention is that the current minimum age of 18 should be retained. Clause 4 would limit the times at which fireworks can be sold or used. There is scope to allow exceptions, such as a post-11 pm use at new year. The clause would introduce a year-round curfew of 11 pm.

Brian H Donohoe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill before us. It is long overdue. One reason for that is that the industry ignores its own code of conduct. Companies such as R.S. McColl sell fireworks 365 days a year and will continue to do so. Will my hon. Friend's Bill prevent that?

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have held extensive consultations with the fireworks industry. The industry is receptive and supports the Bill. It recognises that there is a problem and wants the Bill to address it. I think that my hon. Friend will be content with the provisions and with the discussions that will have to take place before it is implemented.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. It is most welcome and many of us hope that it will be passed quickly. Has my hon. Friend spoken to the police, the local authorities and trading standards officers about the proposed regulations? My constituents complain that existing regulations are not enforced, so we need to ensure that the police, trading standards officers and council officials realise the importance of enforcing regulations introduced under the Bill, and that people selling fireworks to children or letting off fireworks in the street are prosecuted.

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The professional bodies of the UK fire service and of chief constables all support the Bill. They recognise the need for regulation.
	Clause 4 would specify the hours of day when fireworks may be used. Clause 5 would restrict the sale of certain categories of firework to people who are trained, experienced and insured as appropriate. Existing British standards categories would be retained.

Valerie Davey: I offer my hon. Friend congratulations from my constituents and from the police in Bristol, who have experience of category 3 large display fireworks being used as hand-held weapons. When the provisions are considered in detail, will he take into account experience in Bristol, and also in Northern Ireland, where the law was changed?

Bill Tynan: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening intently and that she will address such points in her contribution.

Ross Cranston: One of the valuable points about clauses 4 and 5 is that they deal with possession. At present, there are enforcement problems. The police have power to prosecute people who throw those things in public streets but they cannot catch them. The Bill includes regulations on possession that will definitely allow enforcement—at least in England—especially coupled with the valuable penalty and notice system.

Bill Tynan: My hon. and learned Friend is correct.
	Clause 6 would introduce conditions on matters such as training, insurance, consultation with people nearby and local authority permission for public firework displays. Those holding displays would be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that certain standards were adhered to in respect of training and insurance, and that the impact of displays on people or animals nearby was curtailed or minimised.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Can he assure me that the Bill will do something about the irresponsible behaviour of far too many retailers? Is he aware that a survey conducted by Edinburgh city council found that retailers in more than half the premises visited were willing to sell fireworks to children who were clearly under age, even though the council had sent out a letter warning retailers that it was about to carry out that survey? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is successful the Government should use their powers to ensure that such practices do not continue?

Bill Tynan: I think that the Bill covers the problem of rogue retailers. At present, trading standards departments have to issue permits and there is no chance to revoke or refuse a licence. Retailers who sell to under-age children would certainly be dealt with under the Bill.

David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on presenting the Bill. My constituent Mrs. Marlene Healey has collected a petition of 9,000 signatures; one in eight of my constituents are calling for the types of change in the law proposed in the Bill.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that even at private parties fireworks can maim and kill? Can he assure the House that the restrictions on sales to which he refers will ensure that fireworks that can maim and kill children and young people will not be available for use at private parties?

Bill Tynan: I have been accused by some individuals—although very few—of being a killjoy. I want to make it clear that I want the Bill to promote opportunities for the responsible and safe use of fireworks. It is essential that we do not introduce a ban when there is no public demand for one. The Bill will help to ensure the responsible use of fireworks. It is important that people organising private parties understand the dangers of fireworks, and I hope that the annual safety campaigns will continue to stress how dangerous those explosives can be.

Jonathan R Shaw: On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that retailers who advertise, as they did in Chatham, "Free Fireworks" are extremely irresponsible? Can my hon. Friend confirm that at private parties, especially weddings, people will be able to obtain a licence without too much difficulty and bureaucracy, as long as they provide proper safeguards? My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) may be interested in that point as he is getting married in a couple of weeks' time.

Bill Tynan: Clause 7 would strengthen the existing system for licensing retailers. A two-tier system would be introduced, with tougher licensing and a lower tier that allowed retailers to sell fireworks for a limited three-week period around 5 November and for a short period before the new year. I recognise that, in addition to properly run displays for births, marriages and Valentine's day, there is a more than legitimate demand for fireworks for Diwali, Eid and the Chinese new year. I have held discussions with relevant communities and groups as to how we could deal with the sale of fireworks outside the defined periods.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has just come to the point that I wanted to put to him. I represent a diverse constituency, with people from many ethnic minority backgrounds. There is concern that the Bill might prevent legitimate celebrations, starting in the autumn with Diwali and running through to Chinese new year in the winter. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, while his Bill would rightly control the misuse of fireworks, it would not prevent legitimate family celebrations for those important events in the diverse communities of my constituency?

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I checked on when Diwali takes place; it is normally within the three-week period before 5 November. I spoke to the Chinese embassy about Chinese new year, as I wanted to make sure that I could answer questions such as those put by my hon. Friend, and I was told that fireworks are not used at the celebrations but that crackers are used.
	Under the Bill, fireworks would be available throughout the year, but only with a higher tier licence. There would be higher costs, and stricter standards of training and record keeping would apply. It has been pointed out that if we allowed the sale of fireworks only for a three-week period, people would buy them and store them for months. I want to avoid that. We could have a situation in which people from the different cultures existing in this country felt that they were being discriminated against. I want to avoid that.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and I support him. On his point about training, I note that one aspect of his Bill is to enforce stricter rules on the training of those who give professional displays. I want some comfort on that. We want more professional displays—we do not want to raise barriers to them—and I am not aware that there is a major problem with the safety of professional displays. I have never had a representation from a constituent about that. Will he assure me that he will not over-regulate in that area?

Bill Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I have consulted widely, and the British Pyrotechnists Association is currently running a pilot scheme in four areas. It is looking at the training of operatives at licensed displays to make sure that two tiers apply to the people who operate and the people who manage. There is some merit in the manner in which they are setting up the training scheme, and consultation and discussion can take place to see whether it is a practical proposition for the future. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is being exceedingly generous in allowing so many interventions. I applaud him for that and for introducing the Bill, which is being very well received in Dorset. Today, three Members have received some 8,000 representations from Dorset area residents. In response to the point about the killjoy element, is there not some local variation through local authorities regulating the licences that allows them to make judgments about traditional firework events in their area, and whether they will be carried out responsibly?

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I think that I will get a rocket if I take any more interventions. Local authorities will have such an opportunity depending on conditions. A uniform position will apply in relation to the granting of a licence to deal with rogue sellers and those who currently abuse the voluntary code, which has not been enforced. I hope that that will content my hon. Friend.
	Both tiers of retail licences could be refused or revoked, and the higher tier would apply to those selling via the internet or mail order. Clause 8 allows regulation to be made in respect of the information that must be provided about fireworks. The intention is that that would relate to packaging and information provided with both individual fireworks and packs of fireworks.

Richard Ottaway: I am not just supportive of the hon. Gentleman's Bill: I am highly supportive. I have a genuine question. He spoke about several things that he would like to happen as a result of the Bill, none of which is contained in the Bill, which is nothing but an enabling measure giving the Minister powers to introduce such regulations. Does he have assurances from the Minister that the things for which he asks will happen?

Bill Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is important that I set out, after my consultations and discussions, the content that I believe should be included in the Bill. It is an enabling Bill, and it is essential that the Minister listen to the voice of Members and of the general public outside. Under the circumstances, I hope that that will be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
	Clause 9 allows regulation to be made on the impact of the importation and manufacture of fireworks. The intention of that is that information will be provided to confirm that fireworks entering the UK have been transported to legal storage, and hence that action can be taken more swiftly if they have not. Clause 10 allows for and defines the nature of training courses referenced under the fireworks regulation. It is intended that, in consultation with the industry—as I said, I understand that the British Pyrotechnists Association has already studied this area—and other interested parties, appropriate training courses and standards would be established to cover those areas.
	The remaining clauses are supplementary, covering penalties for committing an offence, a number of technical aspects, the financial provisions of the Bill, the means of firework regulations coming into law, and a number of other minor aspects. From my discussions with the industry and enforcement officers, I would not expect regulations made to have a significantly adverse effect on the business of legitimate parts of the fireworks industry, or to place too large a burden on trading standards, Customs, the Health and Safety Executive or the police.
	In presenting the Bill to the House, I am aware that there are those who may be worried by the fact that this is an enabling Bill. I, too, have some concerns about some of the visions of draconian provisions being enacted using the scope of powers granted under the Bill. I am, however, reassured by the discussions that I have had in preparing the Bill. I believe that, with proper thought and scrutiny, the regulations made under it would not be an instrument of tyranny. This is not a killjoy Bill. As those with expertise have agreed, it is a sensible, considered response to the problems of fireworks misuse, unless it is denied that there is a problem and it is thus contended that the public are wrong to be alarmed about the nuisance of fireworks.
	I trust that I will find agreement that action is needed. I would welcome comments and, as appropriate, amendments to the Bill—perhaps I should not say that—as it progresses through the House. I hope that those who may have a problem with the Bill will work to strengthen and improve it rather than dismiss it.
	This Bill is a timely and comprehensive attempt to modernise how we deal with fireworks in the United Kingdom. I understand that some are concerned about any attempt to tighten the import, sale and use of any item. I trust, however, that they will agree with me, a large number of charities, local authorities, enforcement officers and the British fireworks industry itself—all those who know about fireworks—that the current situation is not acceptable, that we need to change it, and that the Bill provides the way forward. I commend the Bill to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I make a plea to all Members that, since many of them wish to contribute, they should make their speeches concise.

Andrew Robathan: Last night, at about 20 minutes past 11—not 12 hours ago—there was a loud explosion of a firework of some description outside my bedroom window. It woke my daughter, aged three, who started screaming. She fell out of bed 20 minutes later, for which I will also blame the firework. Not 36 hours ago, on Wednesday evening, there was an explosion outside my front door followed by another series of explosions. It may have been the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) trying to make a point, but, instead, it brought home to me how apposite this Bill is. I am delighted to see it, and I congratulate him on his good fortune—I wish that I could win the lottery—and on his comprehensive speech in which he outlined the reasons why the Bill is being introduced.
	We should not forget, however, the enormous pleasure that fireworks give, and have given for many years, to a huge number of our constituents. Just because they have not written to us about it does not mean that they do not enjoy fireworks. It is those who are badly affected who write to us. When I was a child, we would have a bonfire in our little back garden on the edge of London on 5 November only. If it was not in our back garden, it was in somebody else's. We used to eat a lot of sausages, and quite a lot of ash that had attached to them—

Phil Willis: We did not have a back garden.

Andrew Robathan: Oh dear. I suppose that the clogs were a bit rough, too. Poor old chap.

Joan Ryan: He lived in a penthouse.

Andrew Robathan: I thank the hon. Lady for her submission that the hon. Gentleman lived in a penthouse. That is a typical example of Liberal double standards. I suspect that she will agree with me about that.
	In back gardens around the country on 5 November, children gather and have an enjoyable bonfire night. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said, we do not wish to spoil their pleasure. I am old enough to remember that I was sent to the local toy shop with a letter from my mother telling the retailer that I was allowed to have some fireworks. Those were the regulations some 40 years ago. There seemed to be very little trouble at the time, although the accident rate may have been worse. Those of us of my age need to realise, however, that the situation has now changed.
	We have all received many letters, and know that the problem is growing and needs to addressed. Hence the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South.
	For the benefit of doubt, the Bill is sponsored by two members of the Conservative Front Bench. I am sure that all the press releases issued by the phalanx of Labour Members in the Chamber will mention that.

Tom Watson: Members on both sides of the House are genuinely appreciative of the fact that the Conservative party supports the Bill. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we did not have to do it this way? If his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)— "Airbomb Eric", friend of the noisy neighbour—had not talked a similar Bill out two years ago, we would not all be here now because legislation would be in place.

Andrew Robathan: I was going to say that I am delighted to see a phalanx of Labour Members here today. I expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to walk into the Chamber at any moment.
	The Conservative party generally supports the spirit of the Bill although, like the hon. Member for Hamilton, South, we do not like enabling powers. I cast no aspersions on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), but I dislike giving the Government powers that may be abused in future. Members on both sides of the House are always concerned about that. Draconian powers may be introduced, but I hope that they will not.

Desmond Swayne: Is there not a danger that the Government might enable too much? My hon. Friend began with his fond memories of 5 November. Part of my concern about regulating powers derives from the fact that we will accommodate much wider dates than 5 November. It would be much better to have a narrower range of dates.

Andrew Robathan: I shall come on to the dates later, as there is a big issue about the periods when fireworks can be used.
	I should like to look at three general topics—the current situation, the improvements that are already being made and the Bill itself. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned, we are dealing with explosives. That needs to be stressed, as they are always dangerous. I have probably used more explosives than most hon. Members in my previous incarnation. When I was blowing up stacks of high explosives I was always worried, whether I was using an electrical circuit or a safety fuse. Those things are dangerous, especially when the detonator does not go off and you are left wondering why. Unlike a rocket, you cannot put a few pounds of plastic explosive in a bucket.

Russell Brown: In a previous life, I spent 18 years working in the explosives industry, so I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. As politicians we must get across to parents in particular the important point that although young children think that fireworks contain only a small amount of explosive, they burn fiercely and are white-hot. We have been very lucky not to have witnessed real tragedies on our housing estates. Only a couple of weeks ago, something went wrong in a discotheque or nightclub in America. Part of the cause may have been the building, but we saw the ferocity of the fire and the damage, devastation and death that can be caused by fireworks.

Andrew Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly gives a particularly good example of the way in which the mistreatment and mishandling of explosives can have disastrous consequences. I shall not now mention it in my speech. Whether we are parents or grandparents, we should all be aware of that.
	My constituents have expressed concerns about safety, which the hon. Gentleman has just raised. We all welcome any measures that will serve to limit injuries caused by fireworks. In 2001, there was a total of 1,362 injuries—a 40 per cent. rise on the previous year, which is a worrying trend. Of even more concern is the fact that 58 per cent. of those injuries were to under-17s, and 33 per cent. to under-13s. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome anything that reduces those disturbingly high figures and prevents even one child from being blinded.

Iain Luke: rose—

Andrew Robathan: I am conscious of the press releases that are being issued like mad, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I would rather not accept too many interventions.

Iain Luke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave figures for the number of people injured by fireworks. Does he accept that if the numbers are not reduced with the introduction of a licensing scheme in the Bill, there will be a call for a total ban in future?

Andrew Robathan: I shall discuss later the proportionate nature of action to be taken. There are already calls for a total ban, which I do not support any more than I support a ban on every other thing that can injure people. I know that the Government do not support a total ban either. However, we wish to see children protected. Members may have had letters calling for a ban in their mailbags, but millions of our constituents would not welcome that. We need to bear that in mind when reading letters from people who are unhappy about the noise caused by fireworks.
	Fireworks often cause a serious nuisance or disturbance, especially to older people and pets. In the past few years, we cannot have failed to notice that the use of fireworks has escalated, as I illustrated earlier, and that the period in which they are used has grown longer. We have all received many letters complaining about the considerable disturbance that they cause. Indeed, I suspect that there is not anyone in the House who has not received such a letter. A closely related issue is noise, which goes to the heart of the matter and is particularly problematic in built-up areas. The 12 target areas of last year's campaign by the Department of Trade and Industry, snappily called "Fool with fireworks and bang goes your image", were urban conurbations, including Liverpool, Portsmouth, Gateshead and greater Strathclyde.
	Not only is the noise getting worse, but fireworks are used throughout the year. There are fireworks on 5 February, during Diwali, the Chinese new year, Eid and the new year—who can forget the millennium celebrations three years ago? Fireworks were used to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee and her official birthday. Of course, we also have 6 May—[Interruption.] I am surprised that one or two Government Members do not know that 6 May is the official birthday of the blessed leader of the Labour party. These days, they either celebrate it or burn his effigy.
	The noise of fireworks has become relentless, and is of particular concern to those of us with dogs and other pets. I have a gundog called Otter, which I have mentioned before in the House, as Members may recall. When I get my shotgun and take Otter shooting she gets excited. She is a Labrador retriever, and that is what retrievers do. However, if she hears fireworks, she cowers under the table and is terrified.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman was not shooting his neighbours.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.
	If Otter hears fireworks or a thunderstorm, she cowers under the table.

Phil Willis: Does all that happen in your back garden?

Andrew Robathan: It certainly does not happen in my penthouse.
	Everyone in the House agrees that this issue is important, but we should not overstate the case. I should like to discuss safety, which was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). In 2001, there were 1,362 injuries and no fatalities during the period of bonfire celebrations. The previous year, there were 972 injuries, with two fatalities—which is too high, I accept. However, we should compare those figures with the DTI's figures for accidents in the home. According to the DTI website, 2.7 million accidents required visits to hospital, and there were nearly 4,000 fatalities from accidents in the home. In 2001, there were 313,000 injuries following road traffic accidents, of which 40,000 were serious, and there were 3,450 fatalities. So our response must be appropriate and proportionate.
	I have a great deal of time for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which does excellent work. I understand from the association's website that at any one time there are 5,000 guide dogs for the blind. Each dog has a working life of approximately seven years, so there is a turnover of 700 to 800 dogs a year. I am told that only four or five dogs have to be retired each year because of distress caused by fireworks. I accept that that is a problem, but again, we should be proportionate in our response. I know that fireworks terrify animals, but we should not overstate our case. The root problem is the amount and repetition of noise and the decibel level.

Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue as regards guide dogs is not just the cost of the retirement of, I acknowledge, a relatively small proportion of the total guide dog force, but the inhibitory effect that fireworks have on the lives of so many blind people, who are fearful of taking their dogs out during quite long periods of the year? If the hon. Gentleman or I are concerned about the safety of our dogs, we can go out alone, but that option is not available to a blind person. The use of fireworks substantially prejudices the blind person's quality of life.

Andrew Robathan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that we need to be proportionate in our response. The use of fireworks, especially during daytime on the streets, which is what scares guide dogs most, is already illegal. We should remember that. Incidentally, if my figures are wrong, I should be delighted if any hon. Member in the Chamber, or the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, would correct me. I understand that between four and six dogs out of 5,000 are retired each year as a result of firework incidents. Some dogs may need retraining. The figures need to be analysed, as there may be other factors that have made the dogs nervous. I am not understating the case, but we should beware of hyperbole.

Linda Gilroy: Has the hon. Gentleman heard that there are cases in which dogs have to be drugged as a result of the fireworks nuisance, and therefore cannot be used by their owner, which causes problems?

Andrew Robathan: As I said, I do not underestimate the problem, but we should not overestimate it, either. I draw attention to an example of hyperbole. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned animals being tortured or injured. I received a letter a couple of days ago about kittens being tortured by having a firework strapped to their back. None of us would applaud that, and it has been illegal since the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment and it should not happen. The issue is one of enforcement, as has been mentioned.
	The Act is often enforced by the RSPCA, to which I pay tribute for its work in such matters. However, I do not accept the RSPCA campaign, "Quiet Please", which aims to reduce the permitted decibel level to 95 dB. According to the RSPCA, that is similar to the sound produced by a book dropped on to a table from 1 m. I shall demonstrate that. I suspect that few of our children, the children of few of our constituents, and few of our grandchildren would welcome such a reduction in noise level.

Chris Pond: rose—

Andrew Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman is about to celebrate his marriage with fireworks, of course I shall give way.

Chris Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to reassure the House and, through the Chair, the Speaker's Chaplain that I have no intention of redoing Guy Fawkes's job by letting off fireworks in the Chapel in a couple of weeks' time. The hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the impact, especially on blind and elderly people. Regardless of the decibel level, it is the long period of time during which dogs, especially guide dogs, can be frightened or rendered less effective that reduces the quality of life for people. One of my constituents told me yesterday how he had been led across the road by his guide dog, which had been frightened while in the middle of the road. The dog disappeared and my constituent was left in the middle of the road with no means of getting across. For those reasons, we must make sure that the Bill goes through, and that there is a restricted period during which fireworks are available on the streets.

Andrew Robathan: First, as I have not done so properly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his impending marriage. I have done it myself, and I think that it is generally a good thing. I say that for the benefit of my wife. Secondly, I do not think that I am missing the point. I pointed out that guide dogs and other animals are terrified for a long period of time. Thirdly, from what the hon. Gentleman said, I imagine that his constituent was in the middle of the road when somebody threw a firework in the street. That is illegal now.
	The RSPCA does much good work, but its firework campaign is misguided. I am still waiting for the RSPCA to react on its report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", last updated in 1994, which stated:
	"The society's policy is to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport"—
	which is why it is opposed to hunting, and
	"the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete".
	When the RSPCA writes to me to complain, I hope that it will tell me all about that.
	The situation regarding fireworks is getting worse and we need to consider why. The first reason is that fewer fireworks are manufactured domestically. The overwhelming number of fireworks come in from China. The UK is quite a small market, whereas the other markets, such as the United States, which are much larger, prefer bigger bangs. Perhaps that is because they have more space. In any event, the Chinese are making fireworks for a different market and they are being sold in this country.
	The second reason is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. The 1997 regulations banned the manufacture, sale and use of bangers—we all remember the penny bangers that used to be thrown around the street. Because bangers are banned, yobs now use air bombs. Since 1997 the price of air bombs has fallen to a quarter of what it was, so they are more accessible. They are much louder, they are directional—I have never fired one myself because I am too old, but perhaps I should go and buy one to find out—and they can be fired some 60 m, so they become almost a weapon in the hands of the teenage hooligans who mainly use them. We should remember the law of unintended consequences resulting from regulations that we make in the House.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: I will not, as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and a great many hon. Members wish to speak.
	The third reason, as has been mentioned, is the larger white van trade, as I shall call it, for want of a better term—the black market that has sprung up in fireworks, which can be bought and distributed through unscrupulous retailers, car boot sales or wherever. The boxes, I understand, are split up from containers in lay-bys, which is illegal under the 1997 regulations. I suppose we have become a more antisocial society. When I was young, I do not think people threw bangers at old people and guide dogs. Perhaps I am being naive or showing my middle age.
	The problems associated with fireworks are compounded, as we heard from several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by the lack of enforcement. Bangers are illegal, as we know. Throwing fireworks in the street has been illegal since the Explosives Act 1875, yet, notwithstanding all the letters of complaint that we have had, only 64 cases were brought in England and Wales in 2000. I hope that the Bill will make enforcement easier for the police, which is what we all want.
	I shall deal with improvements that are already on the way. Like the Minister who ruled out a ban on fireworks in the Westminster Hall debate on 30 October, we do not favour a ban. I commend the Government—very unusually—on the voluntary measures that they have been instrumental in introducing, which came into force on 1 January.
	The industry, with the assistance of the DTI, has banned the import and sale of air bombs. That will turn out to be the key. People have told me that they believe that it will produce the quietest 5 November and surrounding period for years and that it will remove 10 million bangs from the market, and we all welcome that.
	After eight years' discussion, the CEN, the Comité Européen de Normalisation, or the European Standards Committee—I have A-level French, although it is a little rusty—has agreed on a European standard of 120 dB. I understand that the DTI, the industry and most animal welfare groups are happy with that agreement and standard, and it could be introduced—I am sure that the Minister will tell us—this year.
	The industry will also support a ban on displays after 11 pm—except, of course, on 31 December, although licensing may be needed for that day. Of course, displays after 11 pm are already illegal under the Noise Act 1996. I do not know whether there have been almost no prosecutions under that Act but I am pretty sure that that is the case. The Government are trying out a sort of curfew after 11 pm, which would give the police a greater chance to act, but they are also trying out fixed penalties. They started trying out £40 on-the-spot fines in four areas last August. I hope that the Minister will tell us how those trials are working and how many fines there have been.

Richard Ottaway: May I assist my hon. Friend on that point? My constituency has one of the pilot schemes for fixed penalty notices, and precisely none has been issued against people for throwing fireworks in the street, mainly because those people are under the age of 18 and fixed penalty notices cannot be given to people under that age.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he may say more about it in his speech. The good wishes of the House are commendable, but the actions that follow our legislation are perhaps more important, and my point about enforcement relates very much to that.
	Most of the things that we have heard about break the law already, and a lot of them come from unscrupulous importers and retailers selling to yobs, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The biggest problem of all is the white van trade, selling broken up boxes of fireworks to small retailers, who sell them on to teenagers.
	I now wish to turn to the Bill itself. Conservatives generally are pretty wary of enabling legislation. We certainly do not like extra unnecessary regulations, but we generally support the spirit of the Bill, as I have said already. It is very much a last-minute Bill; the explanatory notes and the Library document for this debate were only published on Wednesday and the Bill was only agreed and published on 13 February, and I understand why. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South is being extremely sensible because, as we know, the Bill will be passed only if the Government give it a fair wind. That is why we have an enabling Bill, which was decided only on 13 February, so let us be in no doubt about that.
	The Bill has been hugely watered down to get Government support, as the House is aware. I shall quote the Government's position, as explained by the Minister. [Interruption.] I trust that she has not changed her position since 30 October, when she said:
	The Government do not believe that a case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks and limiting their use to organised public displays. Such a ban could lead to the development of an illegal firework market and might encourage people to produce home-made devices. Sensible and considerate use of fireworks is a popular family entertainment.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 272WH.]
	We agree.
	Of course, as a result of being watered down, there is very little substance in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South talked about what is in the clauses. Well, actually, there is nothing in them, except the opportunity for the Government to act, and we all need to be aware of that. The Bill gives the Government—I quote the title of clause 2—"Power to make regulations", and the explanatory notes, which I received only yesterday, summarise the Bill as follows:
	"The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations . . . which will regulate the supply and use of fireworks."
	That is all that it will do.
	I have concerns about the Bill, and I should like to mention two of them. The first relates to clause 10 on training courses. As I said and as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I think—

Eric Forth: Wherever.

Andrew Robathan: I am glad to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Chamber.
	I have blown up a lot of explosives in my time, but the easy thing with fireworks is that we light the blue touch paper and retire—that is just about all the training that people need—and I was able to do that as a boy. I am not against training courses, but I am concerned because when I was younger I went on something called a mountain leadership course. It was an excellent course in many ways, but I vividly remember being taught, in the shadow of Ben Nevis, to light a little gas stove. It was just like lighting a gas stove at home: I turned it on and put a match to it, and then I switched it off. I was taught that as part of the course and, as a result, I left the course because I thought that it was such nonsense. If there are to be training courses, they should be short, apposite, inexpensive and as unregulatory as possible. It may sound great to have training courses, but it is the substance of the course that is the test.
	My second concern relates to clause 3 on the supply to children. Of course, it is already illegal to sell fireworks to children. I understand that that clause is designed to stop unscrupulous people buying fireworks and passing them on to teenagers below the age of 18, who cannot be given on-the-spot fines, unfortunately. I am not against that provision, but is it likely—I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest—that it will extend to giving sparklers to my six-year-old? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) winces, but where does the Bill state that it will not do that? He has no answer because there is nothing in the Bill about it.

Gordon Marsden: We can rely on the good sense of the Minister.

Andrew Robathan: The good sense of the Minister—ha, ha, ha—what good sense have we seen so far from the Government? Let us leave it at that.

Tony Banks: Has the hon. Gentleman ever thought about taking up pantomime?

Andrew Robathan: Unfortunately, I would not be able to get a place in pantomime because I know that the hon. Gentleman is already playing Widow Twankey.
	The Bill will give the Minister the enabling power to ban the supply of fireworks to children. That is what it does, and we need to know exactly what that means when we pass a Bill. We should give parents credit for being responsible. I trust that the Government will use their powers wisely and proportionately, but we need to hear an answer on that.
	I commend two points in the Bill, and this relates to what the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said. First, at the moment, there is a £13 registration fee. There should be proper licensing, and the possibility of having two tiers of licensing is sensible. There could be a cheap licence, perhaps for three weeks around 5 November, and a more expensive licence for mail order throughout the year, so that there is proper control over how fireworks are bought. Licensing will not answer all the problems, such as stock piling, but it can be useful and it is relatively sensible.
	I also commend clause 9 on importation. That is the key to enforcement. The Chinese and other fireworks that are imported legally mostly come through Felixstowe. Although that port has the necessary explosives controls, legal fireworks are imported in containers. Where do they go when they leave Felixstowe? There is no check on them. The Health and Safety Executive does not properly check on them. Do they go to registered or licensed suppliers? We just do not know.
	Already it is reckoned that between 10 and 18 per cent. of the fireworks in this country are sold on the black market—off white vans, for want of a better term. What storage do they go to? Storage is not properly enforced or supervised currently, and more kilograms of fireworks are imported than there are licensed or approved storage facilities for them.
	The Bill has little substance, so we can only guess what will come in its wake. For that reason, we are not entirely happy. I urge the Minister to concentrate on enforcement more than on anything else. I suspect that she will because, notwithstanding what I have said, what she has done on fireworks until now has been fairly sensible. Praise indeed.
	Much remains up to the Home Office and police enforcement. I was pleased to see the Home Secretary here, unusually, on a Friday morning. However, a lot remains the responsibility of the DTI, and I suspect that the storage, licensing and tracking of goods comes under the Minister's Department.

Melanie Johnson: indicated dissent.

Andrew Robathan: No? I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is sensible, non-bureaucratic enforcement. Checks should be carried out at Felixstowe so that fireworks go to properly licensed retailers. If those provisions are made and there is proper enforcement, the Bill will work. The enforcement of existing regulations on decibel levels is also the key to improving the lives of our concerned constituents and their pets, as they are genuinely troubled at present.
	I am not a killjoy. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hamilton, South say that he was not a killjoy, and I hope to entertain my children in the future. I appreciate that the situation is worsening. We do not like extra regulation, and I hope that the Bill may help to improve the situation, so, for that reason, we wish it a fair wind.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his good fortune and on taking forward this Bill. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on a couple of Standing Committees and I know that he has a keen eye for the detail of legislation. He ably demonstrated that in his speech.
	In 1997-98, my first year as a Member of Parliament, I was very involved with the work that the my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, did in respect of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 that he introduced. We worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has also done much work on firework safety. Safety was the dominant issue at that time.
	Some Members may not have seen the excellent Library briefing that charts the history of the safety issues in which we have all taken an interest. The appendix lays out the fireworks statistics for the years from 1996 to 2001. It shows clearly the impact of the regulations that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South introduced. They succeeded in reducing the number of accidents. However, over the past year or two—and, predominantly, since the turn of the millennium—the number of accidents is, sadly, increasing as fireworks become more available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South pointed out, the statistics reflect only a small amount of what is happening. The period in which fireworks are sold has been extended. They are on sale from September to February and, in some parts of the country, for even longer than that. Therefore, the statistics do not capture the full dimension of the problem.

Helen Jones: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) compared the statistics for fireworks accidents with those for other accidents, but does my hon. Friend agree that most fireworks accidents are entirely avoidable with the right regulations? Furthermore, the statistics do not describe the misery caused by the antisocial behaviour that is associated with fireworks. It causes great concern to our constituents.

Linda Gilroy: Absolutely. The fireworks safety campaigns carried out by the consumer safety unit every year target the key problems revealed in the statistics. They have been very successful, and I was about to refer to the hooligan use and noise aspects of fireworks.

Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the number of accidents can be measured, the distress caused particularly to elderly people who may have small pets is enormous? Furthermore, the veterinary bills that they have to pay are something that they can ill afford.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was heartened by the initial message of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He appeared to understand the scale and nature of the problem. However, we then heard many mixed messages even on issues such as guide dogs for the blind.

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend highlights a very important point. I presented to the House this week a petition signed by more than 2,000 people. A significant majority of the people who have written to me have described the effects on guide dogs. Will those people who express concerns about the Bill accept that fireworks affect not just guide dogs for the blind but hearing dogs for the deaf? As dogs are trained increasingly to help people in a number of different circumstances, the scale of the problem could escalate. If we do not do something about the problem by controlling and restricting fireworks in the way that the Bill suggests—I heartily commend it to the House—we will store up significant problems in other areas.

Linda Gilroy: We certainly will. Hearing dogs for the deaf is a fascinating subject. I have a letter from a constituent called Lillian who owns a guide dog called Callum. She is totally blind and wrote to me on 3 February to say:
	"Even last night fireworks were being let off in my street. I know it was Candlemas"—
	Lillian has a sense of humour—
	"but I was unaware that this was a time for letting off Roman Candles."
	She adds:
	"However, a few years back whilst walking in the local park area, with a school adjoining, during the morning, I was stopped by a couple of adults who told me not to go further as boys were tossing fireworks across the footpath. As my dog was running free, I called him back to put him on the lead and take a different route. Goodness knows the outcome if I had not done so. I have heard of several guide dog owners who have had to get tranquillisers for their dogs, which of course causes distress to both dog and owner...I trust my letter will add to all the others".
	The petition that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is in addition to the 250,000 signatures on the petition collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is a UK-wide problem as reflected by the more than 21,000 signatures on the petition from south Wales presented here a month ago? There are also 250 distressing letters detailing exactly the concerns that were highlighted in the letter from which she has quoted.

Linda Gilroy: The problem is repeated up and down the country. Almost every Member would be able to quote a similar case.

Andrew Robathan: To avoid doubt, let me make it clear that we have enormous sympathy for guide dog owners and the constituent that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Everything that that constituent has written about is currently illegal. Just introducing extra regulations will not necessarily prevent such problems. We wish that guide dog owner to be able to walk her dog safely through the streets.

Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentlemen's view of regulation is not the view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association or an impressive list of animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He should consult page 35 of the Library briefing document.
	Deregulation will be an important issue in debate on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South rightly said that the Bill had been considered by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This Bill is to some extent modelled on my original Bill, which was backed by the CBI's explosive industry group. In fact, the thrust of my Bill came from the industry, which wanted training courses to take place. I spoke to the annual general meeting of the British Pyrotechnists Association that was held in Plymouth where the national fireworks championships are held each year. The association is working closely with the industry to develop training courses, but cowboys can undercut the cost of supporting that training if a standard is not set for the whole industry.

David Hamilton: I wish to emphasise that point. Many of the 1,500 people in Midlothian who signed a petition in just four weeks and the letters that I have received do not argue for a total ban. People like to see public displays and training is required for them. People using large amounts of explosive require training.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is exactly right.
	Finally on deregulation, consultation with the stakeholders and the fireworks industry and organisations is well honed. The hon. Member for Blaby should not be too concerned that the regulations would be implemented without the fullest possible consultation and consideration of the industry's views. This is a sensible Bill and I commend it to the House.
	I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is no longer is in his place. The House has strong associations with Guy Fawkes. The right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the pack that sabotaged the 1997 Bill and Opposition Members were called to order 38 times when it returned to the House from the House of Lords. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that he may become the "Guy Forth" for those who are interested in this issue. We will not just stick pins in the right hon. Gentleman's photograph, but will try to do some rather more robust things as well.

Vincent Cable: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). My congratulations are heartfelt, because during the last Session I was in charge of a private Member's Bill and I know how much work goes on behind the scenes—the dealing with interest groups as well as the legislative drafting. It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's generosity in responding to interventions and the confidence with which he did so that he had done his homework.
	Let me say unequivocally that my colleagues and I support the spirit of the Bill, and will support its Second Reading. It should be noted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, is a sponsor.
	Despite my support, I think it would be rather feeble to come here just to say "Hear, hear". While I think that the Bill deserves an airing in Committee, I also think that there is a need for constructive criticism at this stage. Many questions need to be asked. We should ask, for instance, to what extent an all-embracing Bill such as this, covering all aspects of production, distribution and use, is required, as opposed to the incremental approach that has been adopted so far. There is also the fact that a "framework" Bill such as this does not address key controversies. Indeed, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman aspires to address them. One of the main controversies concerns whether there should be a ban during the three weeks before Guy Fawkes night—one of the issues in the voluntary code.

John Lyons: Although most retailers have applied the guidance measures, one or two rogue companies have ignored it and have deemed it legitimate to extend sales beyond the three-week period. That is causing problems.

Vincent Cable: That is a good practical point, and we should be discussing precisely such issues. We should be discussing whether a three-week moratorium is a good idea. My point, however, was procedural: I feel that the general nature of the Bill simply defers such arguments until the Minister produces a regulation.
	We talk of a fireworks issue, but there are in fact a number of issues. One is the issue of injury. As has been said, fireworks cause about 1,000 injuries a year, many of them serious. That has been the case for some years. The actions that it has led to relate to the dangerous nature of some fireworks, many of which are currently illegal, and to how regulation can be enforced.
	A second issue, mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), is the antisocial use of fireworks which, although perfectly safe in sensible and mature hands, are dangerous when abused. We are told that 40 per cent. of those injured are teenagers. The Minister has already responded to the problem by introducing regulations that aim to stop the throwing of fireworks.
	In fact the antisocial issue is largely dealt with by existing legislation. We have had a lot of legislation on antisocial issues. Indeed, both the issues I have mentioned have already been dealt with in different ways. The major issue—this, I think, is why we are here today—is noise. Loud fireworks distress elderly people and, in particular, the blind.
	I echo the tributes already paid to the Home Secretary, who made the effort to come here this morning and show his moral support for the Bill. One of the people who have lobbied me is Julia Schofield, one of the most impressive people in the country. She is a leading information technology electronic government entrepreneur, and she is completely blind. She came to me for help several years ago. As a jet-setting business woman, she had to take guide dogs around the world. Taking a guide dog around the streets of New York, Hong Kong and Frankfurt was not straightforward, she said, but it was simple compared with the process of getting a guide dog through the British quarantine system. She wanted some help with that problem. She has now explained to me, in businesslike terms, the practical problems caused to a blind person by fireworks. Dogs must often be sedated because of the distress that they suffer, and her life is made much more difficult by the thoughtless, excessively noisy and antisocial use of fireworks. That, I think, crystallises the issue for many of us.
	What, then, is the best way of dealing with the problem? Should it be dealt with through new legislation, through enforcement or through fireworks standards? I have an open mind, but I wonder how much could be achieved had I the simpler expedient of tough industrial standards. As has been said, it is possible to impose BSSI standards on industry under existing 1997 regulations, which can then be translated into import controls; but perhaps those standards need to be tougher. As has also been said, the European standard prescribes 120 dB. Guide dog groups tell me that 95 dB—roughly the volume of a banging door—would be more appropriate, as anything above that level is distressing. I suspect that if the appropriate level were defined and then imposed through BSSI standards, and if that were properly enforced, many of the problems we are discussing would be solved.

Linda Gilroy: The main aim of the Bill is to extend regulations dealing predominantly with the goods themselves to the use of those goods, particularly through possession. That would make enforcement easier.

Vincent Cable: I do not quarrel with that. I am posing a question: would the need for the regulation of use be quite so great if we dealt with the definition issue, and imposed tough standards?
	Even if we dealt with the issue of standards, however, the issue of enforcement would remain. Several Labour Members have raised that point. Many of the problems are due to the absence or inadequacy of enforcement procedures. As we know, councils are struggling at present. They have too few consumer protection officers, and their environmental health departments are weak. They have been run down over the years, and often cannot deal with abuses.

Gordon Marsden: That has been a particular problem in my constituency. As in many other coastal towns, fireworks are sold in shops with either a short-term lease or no lease at all, which has caused difficulties for hard-working trading standards officers.

Vincent Cable: That also applies in my local high street. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend means there should be legislation to deal with the problem, or more resources for enforcement, but I suspect it is the latter, as with many such problems.
	We should bear in mind—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) tried to refer to this, but found himself in various cul-de-sacs—that there are already a number of legislative prohibitions. There are prohibitions on dangerous fireworks, or bangers. There are restrictions on the storage, public sale and the sale of single fireworks rather than boxes. If all those regulations were properly enforced, many of the current difficulties would not exist. This is an enforcement issue as much as a legislative issue, and we need an assurance from the Minister that there will be enough enforcement back-up. She has a good record on consumer legislation and ensuring that legislation is supported by additional resources for consumer protection officers. Parallel measures are needed in this case.
	In the last few minutes of my speech, I shall refer to some aspects of the Bill that will need detailed scrutiny when it passes, as I hope that it will, into Committee.
	One of the key bits of the Bill is clause 2, which defines the nature of future offences in terms of not using fireworks safely. It talks about the use of safe fireworks to minimise the risk. I shall read this phrase because it is quite important. Clause 2(2) talks about fireworks causing
	"death . . . injury, alarm, distress or anxiety to"
	any person, or
	"death . . . injury or distress to"
	any animal. Setting aside for a moment the quibble as to why animals do not suffer alarm and anxiety, there is a big issue about how these rather subjective measures will be translated into the law. As I understand it, at the moment most of the offences under the regulations are quite specific and easily identified, but the Bill introduces a subjective test. The prosecuting authorities will have to define personal distress, and I am not sure how they will do so in a practical way that will satisfy the courts. That clause requires in-depth examination.

Barry Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a dog required sedation by a veterinary surgeon, that would constitute distress?

Vincent Cable: I would think so, but I am not a defence barrister, who might throw up all kinds of objections to that argument. I am simply suggesting that this definition is not straightforward—I think that I saw the hon. Gentleman nod when I raised this point—and will need a lot of critical scrutiny.
	Clause 3 relates to under-age sale, which is already illegal. There are problems of enforcement, but I do not understand what clause 3 adds to the existing prohibitions.
	Clause 4, a particularly all-embracing clause, relates to restrictions on the time of day and time of year when fireworks can be sold. As I have previously said, that raises the questions of whether it would be sensible to try to impose a moratorium before bonfire night, and how we should deal with Diwali and Chinese new year. My feeling is that perhaps local authorities should be allowed a discretion to allow sale during a festival time; it would not necessarily be 5 November. In an area with a large Asian population, the local authority would probably have a different view from an authority in Cornwall or the highlands of Scotland, but that is perhaps best dealt with at local level.

Andrew Robathan: I am slightly confused, because the hon. Gentleman spoke about a moratorium around bonfire night. I thought that the intention was to allow sale around bonfire night, not impose a moratorium.

Vincent Cable: I did not explain myself clearly. I meant a moratorium outside that period. I am sorry if I did not use the correct language.
	Clause 6 raises interesting and important questions about public display. Many of the provisions contained in it and the associated clause about the need for training, and the need for properly responsible people of the right age group to be in charge of public displays, are helpful and useful, but is it really necessary to superimpose a separate licensing, fee-paying system on the existing obligation on environmental health officers? These people are already under a lot of pressure, but the clause will imply a new regulatory regime, with all the paper filling and bureaucracy involved. One wonders whether they have the resources to cope with it.
	Clause 7 deals with the licensing of suppliers. However, there is already considerable legislative control of suppliers in terms of permitted access, storage, and sales in boxes but not single units. We need persuading that there are important loopholes to be filled. In his own private Member's legislation, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) identified some weaknesses here, but the provisions that clause 7 makes possible are very wide indeed.
	Finally there is the issue of imports, which is covered by clause 8. There are provisions under existing legislation for import controls on dangerous fireworks and I am not sure what additional requirements are needed.
	I raise all these questions in a very preliminary way. They will need to be studied in detail. I support the Second Reading enthusiastically, but although I am not a parliamentary draftsman, as I read the Bill all kinds of questions came to mind.
	In conclusion, I pose a couple of questions to the Minister to which I hope that she will give clear answers. Will she explain clearly why she regards framework legislation of this kind as necessary? She has been carrying through a series of incremental steps, adding to the powers that she has. Why does she feel that that process has reached its limits? The other key assurance that we need from her is that the Government will properly support legislation of this kind—which imposes new regulatory obligations on local authorities—by providing the resources that environmental health departments will require. If we have reassurance on those two counts, I will feel completely confident that we are moving into some very secure, worthwhile and welcome legislation.

Shona McIsaac: As the Member of Parliament who chairs the all-party group on fireworks, I must say that there has been a marvellous turnout today. The group has about 150 members, most of whom seem to be present. I am just a little sad that not everyone can contribute to the debate, but I say well done to everyone for being here.
	We congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his shrewd move in selecting this subject for his private Member's Bill, because it affects every constituency in England, Scotland and Wales. We have all had letters from people complaining about the noise and disturbance of fireworks, and it is time to toughen the legislation, so I am glad that my hon. Friend has introduced his Bill.
	I did not mention Northern Ireland when I referred to all constituencies in this country, because in Northern Ireland the system that the Bill would introduce already exists. I suggest that those who doubt that the system would work look at how it is working in Northern Ireland. Much of the antisocial behaviour that was associated with fireworks—the noise and disturbance—has plummeted since the licensing and regulatory regime was introduced.

Barry Gardiner: I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done in campaigning on this issue for so long. Is she aware that since 2001, when the new regulations were introduced, the number of injuries in Northern Ireland has dropped from 138 a year to just 36? That is significant in showing the effect that the Bill would have in this country.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I tell people who question whether this enabling Bill would work that they should look at how it has worked in Northern Ireland.
	We want this Bill to pass because of the noise, the disturbance, the vandalism, and the hooligan misuse of fireworks. The noise and nuisance have always been around, but they were confined to a few days of the year. The period has extended from a few days to day after day, week after week, and now month after month. I usually get my first letters complaining about the misuse of fireworks in August, but the date is getting earlier every year, which shows that the voluntary code is not working.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the marvellous work that she has done, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing an excellent Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree that a number of people outside the House—including Councillor Tom Maginnis, who led the task group for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—are very keen not only that the Bill should be passed but that it should be implemented with all possible speed?

Shona McIsaac: I agree. In fact, I too have held discussions with COSLA. Its research was excellent and it laid good foundations for today's debate. Yes, of course we want the Minister to use the powers that she will be given by the Bill. Some people are saying that she may go too far, but some of us think that she may not go far enough. If we give her the powers, we hope that she will use them.

Iain Luke: I congratulate my hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), on doing so much work to bring the Bill before the House. Does she agree that, despite the fact that we hope that it will become law, the all-party group should not be made redundant? The regulations may not satisfy public demand for control and provide the successful conclusion that we are all looking for, and surveys taken throughout the country show that a significant number of people, whose voice is not often heard, want a total ban.

Shona McIsaac: I hope that the all-party group does not cease to exist when the Bill is passed. There is a lot of work yet to be done, including in Committee. We must monitor how the Bill works and see whether it reduces noise and disturbance.

Marsha Singh: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on choosing the Bill, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) agree with a ban on the sale and use of fireworks, except around bonfire night and at other licensed events?

Shona McIsaac: The Bill would restrict sales outside certain times of the year, but it also acknowledges the importance of festivals such as Diwali and Chinese new year by providing for the use of fireworks at such times. It would, however, reduce the months of the year in which disturbance would occur.
	Thousands of my constituents have been in touch with me to discuss noise and disturbance, which they want to see ended. I shall give a few examples from my area, which I am sure other Members will share.

Paul Truswell: Does my hon. Friend share my slight dismay at the attitude of Opposition Front Benchers towards the setting of noise levels? If the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is looking for a pantomime character, Wishee Washee might be the most appropriate.

Shona McIsaac: I will not be drawn into that. We have support from Opposition Front Benchers, and I do not want to reduce it.
	An 81-year-old asthmatic woman had to be rescued from her smoke-filled home after louts put lit fireworks through her letter box. In another example, 60 people had to be evacuated from a Grimsby pub, again after lit fireworks were thrown into the building, which filled with smoke. Fire officers said that the incident could have been serious if fires had caught hold.
	Post boxes seem to be a target for hooligans. In one incident in our area in which a post box was blown up, the firework used was not a consumer firework; it was meant to be used only in licensed displays. Such fireworks are banned for sale to the consumer, which shows how various types of firework get into circulation and are used by hooligans and louts.
	Vandals target plastic wheelie bins time and again because the plastic goes into wonderful shapes when fireworks are put in them. The phone calls of drug dealers in Grimsby and Cleethorpes are monitored, so they use fireworks to let addicts know when new supplies have come in. A woman on an estate in our area says:
	"We get fireworks going off all year round here. Even the kids know what a rocket going off means."
	We must take such things very seriously.
	Apart from the danger, vandalism, noise nuisance and disturbance, there are the safety aspects. What happened in Rhode Island has been mentioned, but we must also remember that, a couple of years ago, 282 people died in a fire in Lima in Peru as a result of fireworks triggering a fire. In Enschede in the Netherlands, more than 20 people died and thousands of people were made homeless when a place in which fireworks were being stored caught fire. That area of Enschede is still devastated.
	We should never forget that we are not dealing with toys; we are dealing with lethal incendiary explosive devices. We must toughen up the law because fireworks have become more available. A lot more are being sold and there is a lot more misuse.
	This is not just an urban problem, as some people have suggested, owing to the fact that more fireworks are being let off in cities and towns, creating more noise—it is a rural problem, too. A resident from the village of Ulceby in my constituency said to me:
	"Why do people have to be so selfish? Would they want to spend eight nights outside checking on their livestock?"
	She has to go out to check on her livestock because of firework misuse. A resident from Barton wrote to me:
	"Two years ago a horse bolted, got on to the road, caused an accident and had to be put down because of its injuries."
	Rural and urban constituencies alike are affected by firework misuse.
	I am also grateful to a constituent from Barcroft street in Cleethorpes who sent me leaflets that were put under the windscreen of her car and which show the problem that we are dealing with. We should consider the prices of those fireworks. One is called a devil rocket and the price is only £1.25 for five. That is why these things are getting into the hands of hooligans—they are very, very cheap. Another leaflet refers to
	"mega loud coloured air bombs only £1.50"
	for five. The flyers also refer to rockets at £1.25 for five, making loud screeches and bangs, to £25 monster fireworks
	"that would scare the SAS".
	That says it all. These fireworks are not toys; they are designed to disturb and to create noise—that is all they do.
	Some of the other firework names are air raid, air torpedo, cruise missile, mega scud, nuclear warhead and 100-shot ack-ack barrage. Those retailers also offer free alcohol with the sale of fireworks, which I deplore. Yesterday, a resident phoned me to say that retailers were still selling, although we are outside the time of year laid down by the voluntary code for selling fireworks. He went into a shop and noticed that a firework being sold there was called missile attack, a 150-shot screeching missile at only £8. That is still being sold at this time of year in Grimsby town centre.
	We are not discussing pretty little stars in the sky with nice sparkles and fizzes; these fireworks are noisy, and I hope that the Bill halts their sale. Such fireworks are creating all the antisocial behaviour, noise and nuisance that our constituents want to see ended. I wish the Bill well and the all-party firework group supports it, so let us have all the fizz and none of the bangs.

Derek Conway: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who made many valid points and has done a sterling job behind the scenes in co-ordinating the all-party group. It is good to know that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) has managed to obtain all-party support for the Bill. This is a challenging Bill for him to steer through the House and I hope that the usual channels, as well as Front Benchers, assist him to get it on to the statute book.
	Like many Members, I have received lots of representations and petitions from my constituents. I shall not follow the example of Liberal Democrat Members by listing them all so that I can put them in my newsletters, but those in Old Bexley and Sidcup have made their views clearly known to me, and I have passed them to the Minister. I am grateful to her for her typically courteous and speedy reply. It is good that the Government have taken notice of the depth of concern in constituencies across the United Kingdom. The Minister was most prompt in dealing with that, for which I am grateful.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), in an admirably early and thoughtful contribution, made it clear that those who have some concerns about the drafting of legislation are not party poopers. Sadly, most of us in this Chamber are not that young any more, but we remember with joy the time when we were children and watched fireworks go off. I seem to recall—I do not know whether it is age or not—that in those days they did not seem quite as effective. Most of our fathers had some difficulty getting Catherine wheels to spin, whereas now one could tie a human to them and they would work, so there is a difference between the fireworks that most of us and many of our more elderly constituents remember and the whiz-bang things that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes was right to mention. There is a problem with the type of firework, not just the abuse of the firework.
	I am glad that some concern has been expressed about the period of use. The population in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup is slightly more elderly than in many parts of the country. They know when Guy Fawkes night is coming and they are prepared for it, but they are not prepared for it starting in September. The same seems to happen to everything we do: summer time hardly changes and everyone is shopping for Christmas. It is not a problem just for the fireworks industry, and it results from a general impatience to get to periods of celebration. There is, however, a particular problem with fireworks and the length of time during which they appear, despite the voluntary code, to be readily available.
	Fireworks are undoubtedly frightening. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby mentioned their impact on his children. Their experience is widely felt, even among those who have taken their children to fireworks displays or used fireworks in the garden. Most families enjoy the spectacle rather than the volume of noise from fireworks.
	One of the things that worry me is not the display aspect of fireworks but the use to which they are put. If fireworks were used just for observation and amusement, perhaps we would not all need to be here. It is the abuse of fireworks that is the cause of the Bill. There is no need in a debate such as this to go into detail about injuries to children because everyone sees them every year in hospital casualty units. Damage is done to children who are unaware of the danger of fireworks but who have managed to get hold of them.

John Robertson: May I add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about children having accidents? When I was 12, a friend of mine thought that fireworks did not make a loud enough noise, so he decided to make his own from the fireworks he had. As a result, he blew his hand off. That happened 50 years ago. Is it not sad that we are talking about these things today instead of when I was 12?

Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman, as he always does when he contributes to this debate, makes a telling and thought-provoking response. The consequences of the misuse of fireworks are considerable and often damaging for life.
	I perhaps should at this point declare an interest because of what I am about to say. In the Register of Members' Interests, I declare that I am the chief executive of the Cats Protection League, or Cats Protection as we prefer to be known these days, so I should like to make some observations about animal cruelty, which the hon. Member for Hamilton, South mentioned. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has taken a leading role as an animal welfare charity, and everyone is impressed by the way in which it has done so.
	The animal welfare charity world can be like the world of political parties. We all know what we are doing and we all do it for the best possible reasons, but there is often a degree of in-fighting and spats. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South will be glad to know, however, that on this occasion the animal welfare charities have come together. For once, they agree on something, which does not happen often, so it is quite a triumph for him. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has led the way, with everyone's support, especially that of an excellent organisation called the National Canine Defence League, which takes stray dogs and abandoned dogs, re-homes them, cares for them and does a splendid job across the country.
	Not far from this House, the dogs home at Battersea is another superb organisation. Many people do not realise that for more than 100 years it has been helping cats, too. There is the Blue Cross centre, the Wood Green centre and an organisation much maligned in this place, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has a high political profile in campaigning, which in itself can be controversial. However, I think that all hon. Members would congratulate it on the excellent document that it has produced highlighting the difficulties faced by all species. I am particularly glad to see in his place the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), one of the patrons of Cats Protection. He has a wide interest and reputation in animal welfare matters. It is helpful that organisations such as the RSPCA and those that support it have managed to brief the House this morning so effectively. Action unquestionably is overdue.
	Cats Protection helps about 170,000 cats year, which is more than all the other animal welfare charities put together, through a network of 300 groups across the UK and 30 permanent shelters. I could keep the House going for hours, which of course I do not intend to do, discussing the difficulty with cruelty cases. What we find, particularly in the 30 permanent shelters, is that around Guy Fawkes time there is a phenomenal increase in the number of strays. I refer not to feral cats but to domestic cats that have been scared from family gardens and arrive at our shelter needing help and, often, veterinary support.
	I will give the House one example of cruelty that explains what is happening. It is from Belfast, where we have a shelter in Dundonald on the outskirts of the city. Callous thugs tied to the tail of a 10-week-old kitten a firework that blew its tail off. The distressed animal was brought to our shelter, where the manager, Janice Watts, who is a superb girl with a wonderful crew, cared for the cat and gave it veterinary treatment. It was subsequently re-homed but, not surprisingly, it was a bit suspicious of humans for a very long time.
	The fact remains that cats scare easily. They do not react well to quick movement or to loud noises. They certainly do not react well to having their tails tied. These are not family displays or organised charity events to try to raise money and please everyone. As we know, sadly, on the whole, the cruelty is by very young men who are clearly stupid and who think it is a bit of a giggle and a kick to do something unspeakably horrible to an animal. If they were doing it to one another, I would perhaps have less concern, but they like to use animals to vent their stupidity.

Iain Luke: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about that atrocious incident in Northern Ireland gives strength to the movement towards regulation and control of fireworks throughout the United Kingdom. Does he accept that there is a quite strict regime on control of fireworks in Northern Ireland, and that we need police forces and the authorities to take stronger action against individuals such as the ones who perpetrated the attack on that poor cat to ensure that they face the full rigour of the law? That is the best deterrent we have.

Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, Northern Ireland, if anywhere in the United Kingdom, has a greater awareness of what explosives can do and the danger and fright that they can cause, yet still we have examples such as that. In many ways, one of the frustrations of being in Parliament, and an even greater frustration of being in the police service, is that one cannot outlaw human stupidity. That is what we are talking about in such cases. It is wanton, mindless cruelty. However, we must still try to encourage those who are less ridiculous along a law-abiding route. That is why I hope that the Bill will make progress this morning.
	Charities such as Cats Protection are more interested in finding homes for cats than in paying vet bills for animals damaged by fireworks displays, although sadly that is a large part of our expenditure at that time of the year. It is mindless cruelty. Certainly, the animal welfare sector, as well as my constituents, who are irritated by the human consequences of fireworks, will wish the hon. Member for Hamilton, South Godspeed with his Bill. I am glad that it is getting support from all parts of House.

Roger Gale: I shall begin by paying tribute to a man called Malcolm Armstrong, who taught me what little more than most people I know about pyrotechnics in one hour of a moving morning. Mr. Armstrong follows in a fine tradition of firework manufacturing in Thanet, which used to host the Astra fireworks factory. I visited Mr. Armstrong's business some years ago; it looks like a collection of garden sheds in a field, but he manufactures some of the finest pyrotechnic fireworks produced in this country, and over the years he has given pleasure to very many people.
	All visitors to Malcolm Armstrong's establishment are taken to one particular shed, which contains a workbench on which there is a photograph of his son, who worked in the business and was blown apart. Because of the care that everyone was required to take, and the careful separation, only one person—the proprietor's son—died in that accident. If I ever needed to learn, I learned then how very dangerous fireworks can be, even when they are properly handled.
	Malcolm Armstrong went on; others might not have been big enough. He did not give in; he continued to manufacture superb displays that gave pleasure to thousands of people. He manufactured the displays for the Quex park promenade concerts in my constituency, which attracted thousands of people and raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity—but he has never forgotten, and never forgets to tell anybody handling fireworks, or anybody operating for him or running a display, that those explosives can kill.
	All constituency Members of Parliament will have had the privilege and pleasure of attending firework displays held for charity. Any constituency Member representing a rural area will have been to village fêtes, the culmination of which, in the evening when the sun has gone down, is often a firework display. Anybody with a school in their constituency—and that means everybody—knows that schools too have displays. Everybody knows that a balance has to be struck between the hazards and the pleasure that fireworks give to many people.
	About 30 per cent. of the population of my constituency are over retirement age. Many of those elderly people are widowed, and many of them have pets. I shall not rehearse again the arguments so well deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway); suffice it to say that double distress is caused by the irresponsible use of items primarily designed for enjoyment. The constant use of fireworks throughout the year by irresponsible hooligans, often late at night, causes distress for the elderly and a second distress to their family—because their families are their animals.
	What I want to say to the Minister and the promoter of the Bill is simply this: what is being done here today is necessary, and it has my fullest support—but as one who has the privilege of scrutinising legislation from time to time, I think that another concern needs to be expressed too. The Bill is fairly loosely drafted, and has deliberately been designed to give the Secretary of State powers to introduce regulations. I hope that those regulations will strike the balance needed to control the irresponsible use of fireworks while at the same time permitting public enjoyment, not only on bonfire night but on other proper occasions throughout the year. I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) to consider that. When he takes his Bill into Committee, will he carefully consider discussing with his colleagues in Government the possibility of introducing amendments that, at the very least, make the regulations subject to the affirmative statutory instrument procedure, so that we in the House can be sure that we are doing what we intend to do?

Melanie Johnson: I join all the other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his success in winning the lottery and bringing forward this important Bill. I can give the House the reassurance that the Government support it. I am also pleased to hear from Members on both sides of the House about how my hon. Friend has gained the support of organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross and many others, such as Cats Protection, which we have just heard about.
	The British Fireworks Association, which represents the fireworks industry, also broadly supports the Bill. That is important, and represents a recognition on its part that there is a growing impatience in the community about the difficulties that people are experiencing with fireworks, and that these issues need to be addressed.
	As hon. Members have said, many people have concerns about fireworks. All our postbags contain many complaints from our constituents about their misuse, and the noise and nuisance that they cause. I believe that there has been a sea change in those concerns over the past few years. At one time public concern was principally focused on injuries, and although we and the public continue to be concerned about the number of injuries, the vast majority of the letters, many of which I have received via other Members for my attention, and which I study carefully, highlight the problems that Members have already mentioned—the noise and nuisance, and all their consequences.

Iain Luke: I am one of those Members, and I have received no letters back from the Minister. I congratulate her on being instrumental in bringing about her Government colleagues' acceptance of the need for the Bill, but does she accept that this is simply one stage, and that if the Bill is not strong enough, stronger measures may be needed to deal with the problems of noise and nuisance that she is talking about, and which our constituents experience?

Melanie Johnson: My hon. Friend alludes to other possibilities. I could construe him, perhaps wrongly, to mean that fireworks should be banned from general public use.

Iain Luke: indicated assent.

Melanie Johnson: That is one thing that some people have argued for. Indeed, the fireworks industry recognises that if the concerns that are preoccupying us today are not properly addressed in terms of both legislative powers and the enforcement to back them up, there may be growing support for a ban. Hon. Members have accurately expressed the balance of views. Fireworks still give enormous pleasure and many people want their use to continue within a better framework.

Marsha Singh: When it comes to regulation, will the Minister consider banning exceptionally loud and dangerous fireworks to the general public?

Melanie Johnson: I will consider that. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the European Union is turning its mind to the problem and a European standard may also be set.

Paul Truswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that people fear that the European Union may introduce a noise level that is far too high? Although the Bill contains a raft of desirable measures, does she accept that noise is at the core of the problems with fireworks? Is she attracted to the approach that we should set our own level, perhaps along the lines suggested by the RSPCA, and if not, why not?

Melanie Johnson: I am attracted to the approach that people should no longer experience undue noise from fireworks. We have to bear in mind a number of considerations. A certain explosive charge is necessary to put something into the sky which is, obviously, the minimum requirement. Beyond that, we must consider the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) rightly outlined in considerable detail. It is often the availability of cheap and noisy fireworks—how they are sold and marketed, and to whom they are sold—that is the cause of the problem. As we have heard from many constituencies, it is the way in which fireworks are used by hooligans in communities and their availability throughout the year that cause the problems experienced by the public.
	Hon. Members raised the same points in a variety of ways and we all know that we must address them. The protections necessary for humans, animals and property are major concerns. Our powers are limited at the moment and we cannot introduce those protections now. The Bill's main purpose is to provide the capability to use regulations to address the problems associated with fireworks. As hon. Members recognised, it will give us enabling powers to make regulations that control, among other things, the times of the day when fireworks can be used. We will also be able to set a maximum noise limit on all fireworks sold to the public, to require suppliers of fireworks to be licensed, to ensure that public firework display operators meet requirements before giving displays and to control the importation of fireworks. All those measures will play a role in solving the problem. So a package of measures will resolve the difficulties that many people face.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned the framework legislation. We are interested in a Bill of this nature because the problem requires a package of measures. It is also clear that it may need to be flexibly implemented to address problems as and when they occur. The main problem is not in going too far or not far enough—although both of those have been suggested to me, and it would, of course, be for the House to consider any regulations—but in making things as effective as possible. That requires us to ensure that legislation is flexible enough to respond to problems as they occur. Indeed, some of the problems arise from the fact that legislation principally focuses on product safety. There is no longer such a large issue about firework product safety because they are mostly safe when used "as it says on the tin". Unfortunately, that is not how they are being used and we do not have the legislative support to deal with the problems that are arising.
	I know that for many people the period of sale is a big issue. The voluntary agreement worked in recent years, but we have had to press the industry to hold to it. Trading standards officers have also had to work hard to sign up retailers. Unfortunately, growing evidence last November showed that a number of retailers— mostly individual shopkeepers, but also one or two well known chains—were openly flouting the voluntary agreement. The Bill gives us the power to enforce the code, and I accept entirely the point—made by several Members—about the multicultural nature of our society, and that we must enable fireworks to continue to be used in the cultural festivals of which they are traditionally a part. The Bill will give us powers to regulate any traditional firework-using festival, and we anticipate that no group will be disadvantaged as a result of these measures.
	On enforcement, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned the use of penalty notices. Fixed penalty notices have indeed been used in some pilot areas—of which there are only a few—but not in Croydon, according to his account. It would be worth while exploring with the local authorities what the difficulties are, but I can assure him that such notices have been used in other areas. We should turn our minds to the fact that we need more complex powers not simply to provide better enforcement. We are talking about young people—mainly, young males—acquiring fireworks with hooligan intentions and using them in what are essentially hit-and-run crimes. As hon. Members well recognise, that creates a continual difficulty for the enforcement authorities. What we must do is to crack down on the source of the trouble, as well as to tackle it with more effective enforcement, and that is exactly what this Bill will enable us to do.

Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has correctly pointed to the central issue. Enforcement will necessarily be dealt with if the supply is cut off. Such people do not wander around the streets throwing sparklers at each other. They use exploding fireworks; we need to attack them and ban their sale. I hope that the Government will introduce regulations to that end.

Melanie Johnson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it is for just that reason that we need to implement strong measures to deal with the hooligan element. It is a great sadness that the hooligan element in our society has terrorised our communities, and I trust that this time sense will prevail in the House on the new powers that are needed to address the problem. I believe that the last time such legislation was debated, a few spoiled things for the many. I hope that the existing consensus and the difficulties reported by many today, all of which point in the same direction, will make Members determined to take the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South has provided, and—while continuing to make key and constructive criticisms—to support his Bill's passage through the House. Its passage is crucial if we are to achieve any diminution in the difficulties that all of our constituents are affected by.
	I am determined that we strike the right balance by regulating only where necessary, and I want to ensure that the Bill introduces no extraneous or unnecessary regulation. As I said, we must consider its effectiveness and its implications, and I shall study carefully the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) as an exemplar of the avoidance of extraneous material. The Bill will undoubtedly be considered at much greater length if the House decides to commit it to Standing Committee. Assuming that it does progress, much of its detail would need to be thrashed out not only in Committee, but when regulations are introduced, and in the light of the way in which such regulations should be constructed. Given the great public concern that exists about this issue, and given that many support the Bill and want it to make progress, I hope that Members will continue to support it as it progresses—as I trust it will—to Standing Committee for more detailed consideration.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to support this Bill as a sponsor. My hon. Friend and co-sponsor the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I can demonstrate that both London and Cornwall have a considerable interest in this Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) not only on his luck in the draw, but on the assiduous way in which he has consulted on the details of the Bill, which has been a model for all who wish to take private Members' Bills through the House. I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—she and her Department are already heavily involved in discussions on how to make regulations effective.
	We must emphasise that this Bill does not put us on the slippery slope to prohibition. It is precisely to prevent the need for prohibition that we should introduce effective regulations that will deal not only with supply—which has been the main concern in the past—but with possession and use. I entirely endorse the concerns that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about making the Bill sufficiently robust and ensuring that sufficient resources are available for the enforcement of regulations. However, I am sure that everybody in the House will wish to ensure that this Bill is given all the support possible today.
	I wish to pick up on one or two points that have not been raised so far. Most of us have wondered, "Why now?" Indeed, the rather lacklustre speech from the Conservative Front Bench was all about misgivings over whether we should go any further than we have gone already and whether existing legislation is sufficient. Most of us feel that it is not sufficient. A number of hon. Members have worked on this issue and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for the work that they have done to draw attention to the inadequacies of existing legislation, making them all too clear.
	The increased availability of fireworks is a problem and reference has been made to the incredible products that are now available cheaply. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes read out a list that sounded like an inventory that might be sent by President G.W. Bush to any country in the middle east that was trying to buy arms. It was extraordinary. Other problems include the length of period during which fireworks are now used, the scale of displays and the simple power of the explosives that are now used, even for private displays.
	Another problem that I wish to highlight is that of confusion. At a time when we are all alert to the dangers of terrorism, there is a particular reason for ensuring that regulations are robust. I can recall sitting in the Members' Tearoom just a few days after 11 September. Suddenly, there was an almighty explosion. From the Tearoom we could not see what it was. It turned out to be a fireworks display on the south bank but—believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker—some elderly Members leapt out of their seats.
	The threat of confusion is important. Hon. Members will appreciate that in Cornwall and Devon it is extremely important that the emergency services can immediately recognise a distress maroon signal from a boat or ship anywhere along the coast. The confusion that can arise because of expensive fireworks can be very dangerous indeed.
	North Cornwall has a large number of elderly people and people who live in remote rural areas. I entirely endorse the point that was made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes: this is not just an urban problem. Indeed, in a way, fireworks can be more dangerous in rural areas because the explosion is much more dramatic when there is not a lot of background noise. That can be dangerous for livestock and pets—and we know that some 8,000 pets a year may be affected—and can also be very disruptive for elderly people in remote communities.
	One particular issue has rightly diverted this morning's debate. Fireworks can cause permanent damage to guide dogs, but they can also cause the disorientation of the dogs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who was here earlier, mentioned that the Royal National College for the Blind in his constituency is very concerned about such disorientation. It can not only be disruptive to a dog, but lead a person into a dangerous situation.
	North Cornwall has, in the past, been somewhat notorious for attracting holidaying snob yobs to beach parties. In addition to burning boat equipment for their barbecues and bonfires, they let off fireworks at various times through the night, which is terribly disruptive in comparatively quiet neighbourhoods.
	Like other Members, I want to speak briefly so that we can bring the debate to a successful conclusion. In cold print, the explanatory notes set out excellent justification for the measure. Existing powers are limited to the supply rather than the use of consumer goods. We must deal with use, possession and irresponsible attitudes. Yes, powers are available to the Minister for dealing with supply, although they may not be sufficiently well enforced. I understand the point about imports; it was made strongly in the debate and is extremely important.
	It is demonstrable not only from what our constituents tell us but from the big turnout in the Chamber that the Bill is extremely important and timely and should be supported this morning.

Richard Ottaway: Time presses so I shall not dwell on the niceties, other than to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing the Bill.
	The problem with legislation of this type lies in finding a balance: we want to deal with a nuisance without interfering in people's reasonable enjoyment of fireworks in appropriate circumstances. There is no doubt about the inappropriate growth in the use of fireworks in recent years. It affects elderly people and, above all, pets and animals. It is no surprise that many Members referred to cases involving animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) made a powerful speech in which he drew attention to the effects on animals. That is the engine room for reform.
	We all have horror stories about the distress caused to animals by inappropriate use of fireworks. Recently, a constituent wrote to me to say that she had had to have her dog put down because it had bitten her child after it was distressed by a firework display. An excellent briefing document from the RSPCA draws attention to the problems for horses, cats, small mammals and nocturnal wildlife such as badgers and foxes.
	If pet owners receive notice that there is to be a firework display, they can take action to lessen the distress that could be caused to their pet. They can sedate animals or move horses. It is distressing to witness the anxiety caused to animals by fireworks. Dogs often shake and shiver from head to foot; they whimper and hide under beds to try to get away from the noise. Owners feel helpless in such situations because we cannot explain what is going on.
	In recent years, there has been a growth of municipal displays, such as the large ones held on the other side of the river. They have taken over from the family, domestic type of event held in the back garden, with sausage rolls and dad trying to light a pathetic small fire, after which everyone retires early. There is real growth in the use of fireworks, especially in the London boroughs, so it is no surprise that many London MPs are in the Chamber.
	The types of fireworks used are on the up. In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) set out the wide range of fireworks on display. There are shops that appear in the weeks leading up to 5 November where one can buy a huge container with just one fuse. It costs about 70 or 80 quid and is a complete, self-contained display. I admit that my constituency is fairly affluent and many young people buy such things; they give them to their younger brothers and off they go.
	Unsurprisingly, many injuries are caused by fireworks—a point that has not been much mentioned today. The DTI briefing noted that 1,300 people were injured by fireworks last year, a quarter of the number of people injured in road traffic accidents, which was about 5,000. Given the amount of money devoted to the prevention of road traffic accidents, the Bill's proposals are modest by comparison.
	As many Members have pointed out, the regulations are not working. The Minister dealt with the point that I raised in an intervention: no notices have been issued under the fixed penalty pilot scheme in Croydon because, as has been said, the offenders are mainly young kids aged under-18 who cannot be issued with such penalties. That is one of the problems that the Minister said that she would address.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Ottaway: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not. He has only just arrived in the Chamber.
	As a typical Conservative, I am reluctant to introduce powers if regulations are seen to be working. There is a common consensus, however, that those powers that are currently available are not seen to be working. I am wary about the enabling Bill, and I was comforted by the Minister's speech, when she said that she would consider these matters seriously. What is important is not just what can be sold and when they can be sold, but when they can be let off—we should contain the period within which fireworks can be let off—and to whom they can be sold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, this problem seems to occur earlier and earlier—fireworks seem to go off throughout the autumn, and often through the night. The House must deal with that situation.
	I return to the theme to which many Members have referred—animal welfare. That is desperately important, and I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind.

Michael Weir: I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing this important Bill, which strikes at a serious problem in all our communities. It is not often that he will receive a compliment from an SNP Member, and I hope that it does not damage his career too much.
	I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that this is not just an urban problem. I cite the example in my constituency of one small village where more than £2,000 worth of damage was caused to a house when a firework was jammed through a letterbox in the early hours of the morning. If that fire had not been discovered quickly, it could have turned out to be fatal to the family sleeping in the house. That is how serious this matter is.
	Fireworks are meant for enjoyment and celebration. Unfortunately, they are misused by a small minority, which causes huge distress to our constituents and to animals. It is perhaps no coincidence that fireworks are governed by the Explosives Act 1875. Sadly, many of those most at risk in our society are the most vulnerable. It has been noted that the numbers of injuries are increasing. In Scotland alone, in 2000–01, there was an increase of 35 per cent., which is seriously worrying. Last year, I pursued this matter through parliamentary questions to try to ascertain the dates of accidents involving fireworks. The answers showed that the majority of incidents took place before and after 5 November, not on the date itself. Perhaps even more worryingly, the majority of those injured were under 18.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked why this measure was a framework Bill rather than having the incremental approach that has been adopted until now. It is true that after the Government introduced the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which, along with other measures, restricted the sale of fireworks to those over 18, the number of injuries from fireworks decreased. The level of injuries reported in 2001, however, was higher than in 1996, and substantially higher even than in the millennium year, 2000.
	If the increase in the number of injuries is worrying, the age distribution of those injuries is even more disturbing, especially when one considers that, under those regulations, youngsters should not be able to buy fireworks. Injuries to under-13s account for 34 per cent. of the total injuries. A further 25 per cent. is made up of 13 to 15-year-olds. In essence, therefore, 59 per cent. of all firework-related injuries are to children under the age of 16—the very people who should not have access to fireworks. It seems clear, therefore, that the age restrictions in the 1997 regulations are not working and that further action is required.
	I appreciate that time is short, but I want to raise the issue of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. My constituency has long been associated with guide dogs because of the presence of the Scottish training centre. The training centre is actually in Forfar, which is just across the border, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). Much has been said about the problem for working guide dogs, but it goes further than that. Throughout the boroughs of Angus, many people look after and train puppies for the association. Many of those dogs are affected by fireworks before they even become working guide dogs. The problem is therefore serious and should not be underestimated, as it affects the association's puppies as well as the working guide dogs that assist our blind constituents.
	Much has been said about the fact that the Bill is effectively an enabling measure, which is both a strength and a weakness. The weakness is obvious, as we are not entirely certain what the regulations will say, and trust the Minister to be reasonable. However, I was reassured by her speech and I believe that acceptable regulations will be introduced. The strength of such regulations is that they can be adopted more quickly than primary legislation. In an area like this, that is very important and, interestingly, was used by the industry as an argument in favour of the voluntary code. It argued that the code could be quickly amended. However, the code is simply not working because it is voluntary and, as has been noted, several retailers are not sticking to it, which has led to the need for regulation. If the Bill is not successful, there will be calls for a total ban. If there are no improvements, it will become more difficult to resist those calls.

David Atkinson: Last year, I received more complaints from constituents about fireworks than ever before, as did Bournemouth borough council, which serves my constituency. In response to those complaints, it passed a resolution on 26 November last year calling on the Local Government Association to make the strongest possible representations to the Government to ban the sale of fireworks to the public and ensure that fireworks are supplied only to qualified organisers of displays. My local paper, the Bournemouth Daily Echo collected a petition in the form of over 4,000 completed coupons signed by its readers in response to its "Bang Out of Order" campaign, together with a separate petition supported by 3,500 signatures, both of which were presented by its senior reporter, Paula Roberts, to the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and myself outside St. Stephen's entrance at 9 o'clock this morning.
	Any initiative to reduce the nuisance of fireworks will therefore have the widest possible support from my constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing his Bill today, but I shall suggest some ways in which it can be improved. The complaints and nuisances that have already been cited in justification of the Bill's introduction echo very much the complaints that I have received over the years against the unregulated and indiscriminate use of fireworks, which can have a serious effect on young children, the elderly and, indeed, all of us who cannot avoid an involuntary jump in response to a loud bang outside the home or anywhere for that matter. The effect on dogs, cats, aviary birds, horses and livestock is also distressing for the owners, particularly when pets and other animals have to be put down as a consequence.
	The nuisance extends well beyond midnight, when most of us are trying to sleep. It needs only one bang to set off a chorus of dogs barking in the neighbourhood. The period in which we have to endure such nuisances seems to widen every year, starting well before Halloween and not ending until after the new year. Indeed, fireworks are used throughout the year, as we have heard. Many hon. Members have rightly stressed the traumatic effect of fireworks on guide dogs for the blind and on their owners—it can bring the dogs' useful work to a premature end. The conclusion we should draw from the ever-widening experience of our constituents is that the fun of fireworks for some does not justify the widespread misery that they cause for many. The Government's response has been to rely on voluntary restraint by the industry to reduce the level of noise and to reinforce the voluntary sale agreements with retailers, together with other initiatives, but the Bill goes further in enabling the Government to introduce new regulations on the use and supply of fireworks and in introducing other measures.
	What will happen when the Bill becomes law? Will my constituents immediately be better protected? That will not necessarily be the outcome. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South acknowledged, his Bill is neither simple nor brief. It is also extremely bureaucratic, and I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) that it may prove to be unworkable. I want much clearer proposals in the Bill. I would not restrict the sale of fireworks. Instead, I would restrict when fireworks can be used and by whom.
	Although I am a Roman Catholic Member of Parliament, I do not propose that Guy Fawkes night should be abolished, as it is so much part of our national culture. I am also a monarchist and a democrat, and believe that he should not have attempted to blow up the King and Parliament. The weapons inspectors did good in discovering the gunpowder plot—I hope they do the same in Iraq.
	I propose that the private use of fireworks and the holding of bonfires should be restricted to seven days a year, which include 5 November and the nearest weekend to it. For the rest of the year, fireworks should be only for public display by organisers who have obtained an occasional licence from the local authority. That should also apply to private parties. There should be a curfew of midnight for all fireworks on every occasion.
	How should these restrictions be policed? Because my proposals are much clearer than what the Bill proposes, I believe that public pressure and self-restraint could prove surprisingly effective. It would simply be considered antisocial to behave otherwise, even by young people towards those who offend. I believe that what I have proposed would have much more support than what is proposed in the Bill. I look forward to support from the promoter of the Bill for my proposals, and I wish him success in the passage of the Bill.

Robert Syms: I shall not detain the House long, as there is a general consensus in support of the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on introducing it. We all know the growing problem. Year on year as Members of Parliament, we get more letters, more complaints and more hassle from constituents. We have heard well-rehearsed arguments about the problems caused to guide dogs for the blind, young children and the elderly, and the trauma caused to pets.
	There is undoubtedly an argument for more controls on those who use fireworks. We are not killjoys, but the balance is wrong and we need to redress it. I support the Bill, although I have a number of concerns because it is an enabling Bill. I welcome the Minister's assurance that many of the regulations will be available for the Standing Committee and certainly before the Bill comes back to the House, so that we can see what the Government intend to do.
	I also welcome the training aspect of the Bill, which is vital. Even those who are experienced should undergo training at regular intervals. Not much has been said about the provision of information. We can legislate all we like, but giving information to people and changing attitudes will be tremendously important. We have heard throughout the debate about abuse, largely by teenage boys. Much more can be done. Over recent years, the Department of Trade and Industry has provided much better information, but as the legislation goes through, there should be a commitment from Government to spend a little more on promoting good practice and highlighting the dangers of fireworks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) said, according to the most recent figures, 1,300 people were injured and taken to hospital. That is far too many.

Shona McIsaac: For the record, those injury figures are only for the month of November. There are probably more injuries than that, but the figures are collated only for that one month.

Robert Syms: The hon. Lady makes a good point. As has been said, there are many injuries because of the extended period over which fireworks are used.
	I support the principle of the Bill. We shall have to look carefully at the detail. My constituents will welcome the measure. As we have heard from Dorset Members today, firework safety is an issue in Dorset and the Poole-Bournemouth conurbation. The Daily Echo has conducted a strong campaign. I wish the Bill well and hope that it makes good progress.

Annette Brooke: I will be very brief and try not to repeat points, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on presenting his Bill so clearly today. I am impressed with the amount of support that he has gathered from such a large number and wide range of organisations.
	Like all hon. Members in the Chamber today, I have an enormous mailbag of letters about the problems caused by fireworks. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has just said, this morning, I was party to the presentation of a petition from out local paper, the Daily Echo. The petition was absolutely enormous, with readers writing to the paper day after day, saying that fireworks are going off all hours of the night, that they are louder than ever, that they terrify pets and the elderly and that they are being let off over a longer period of time. I do not think that that is just a perception; those are facts. Matters are getting worse and we need to do something about it.
	I am also concerned that fireworks are getting into unauthorised hands, and I have an example from my constituency. A 1.5 m long firework—labelled "For display only. Made in China"—was found after badly damaging a roof in a residential area, and the incident was unrelated to any organised firework display. Those very large fireworks are really frightening. They might go through the glass roof of a room where people are sitting. All sorts of things could happen.
	Many organisations have been mentioned, and I should like to add another: the Townswomen's Guilds—a very formidable organisation—carried out a survey among its 70,000 members last year. More than 90 per cent. of them were concerned about firework nuisance and believed that there should be more regulation.
	I am concerned about how local councils deal with consumer protection complaints. I have a letter which states:
	"It is so obviously true that it is such a cop-out. It is difficult for us to investigate private displays, as we never know where and when they will occur, so don't do anything about the noise at unsocial times."

Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I really have not got time to give way.
	Local councils are looking for help, and I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said. The letter goes on to say:
	"We appreciate that the Government is looking into the question of retail sales of fireworks, but until legislation is made, we are not in a position to take any action."
	That is much appreciated.
	We have heard much about the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, and I share all those thoughts.
	As a Liberal Democrat, of course, I should like to quote one of my constituents. She wrote to me—this is very moving—saying:
	"Our beautiful large dog has to have 14 expensive tablets a day to calm her down and is still under the vet for a medical condition caused through stress and fear."
	All the local vets are saying that this is the worst year ever. That is the point: things are getting worse and worse. Vets and doctors are being involved in emergency call-outs because of the injuries. Apart from the cost to the individuals who are hurt, there are all the add-on distress, medical costs and so on.
	I am very pleased that we are making progress. I am pleased to hear the level of support today. I am certainly not a killjoy—I really do enjoy celebrations and having a good time—but if we do not take action now, we will be face very strong calls for a ban, and we would all be worse off if we had a total ban on fireworks.

Andrew Selous: I, too, am pleased to support the Bill, although I am concerned that it has been watered down by the DTI, and I noted that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said that he hoped that it would be strengthened in Committee.
	Among the incidents that have been reported to me by my constituents, I received a letter from a lady in Houghton Regis early last week saying:
	"We dread the month prior to and following Bonfire night."
	She spoke of a firework display near her house that went on from 7 in the evening until 1 am, depriving all her household of sleep. A lady from Leighton Buzzard wrote to me to say that the local vets now put out advice leaflets to all who go to their surgery. They have never before had to tell owners how to deal with animals that are distressed by the use of fireworks.
	Figures from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association tell us that four guide dogs are prematurely retired every year because of injuries caused by fireworks. Some 150 guide dogs have to be taken away from their owners every year and retrained, and we can imagine the distress that that must cause to their owners. It also estimates that up to £200,000 of publicly donated money is wasted because of fireworks. It is a serious issue and we are grateful to the association for providing that information.
	Another constituent from Leighton Buzzard wrote to say:
	"Some of the explosions round here remind us of the blitz."
	Two other incidents were also extremely worrying. Only a few weeks ago in Leighton Buzzard, a rocket was fired at a house. It went through a window and only just missed a five-year-old child who had just left the room. Had the child been in the room, there could have been a casualty or even a fatality. Similarly, in the village of Kensworth in my constituency, rockets were recently fired at local shops and even at the Methodist church.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trouble that we now face results from the sheer size of many fireworks? That is the feature that has changed so much in the past few years. Much bigger and more dangerous fireworks are available to the public when, in the past, they would have been used only at displays. I hope that the Bill will cover that point.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for reading a list of the type and size of rockets that are freely available to the public.
	The current law and regulations are failing. The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 have not done their job. We have already heard that it is not possible to give on-the-spot fines to those aged under 18, so that penalty will not be effective. My concern is that the police are simply unable to enforce the legislation that is on the statute book. That is the sad reality. We can pass laws in this place, but we have to examine whether the police are able to enforce them.
	South Bedfordshire district council tells me that it cannot take action against offenders unless the offence is persistent. Except in a few cases, the same household is not likely to cause a problem again and again. The problem for our constituents arises when many different households and individuals cause offence and when the local authority cannot do anything about that.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The police cannot arrest anyone unless the evidence is on the person or unless that person is seen lighting the firework. The police have an impossible job. We need to amend the law.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I want the Bill to do two specific things, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton, South will deal with these points when he responds.
	First, the Bill must end the sale to the public of noisy fireworks. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is right when it says that a 95 dB level should apply to the fireworks available to the public. Its evidence is that such a limit is needed because of the effects on animals. It has widespread public support. Secondly, the Bill must stop the sale of rockets to the public. We have already heard that they are used as missiles against people's houses.
	Noisy fireworks and rockets can be used at the large properly organised public displays, but they should not be available for sale to the public. The public's use of them should be made illegal. I do not want to stop private individuals using sparklers and holding quiet colourful displays. They are fine. However, the public must be prevented from using noisy fireworks and rockets.

John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on his good fortune and all the other Members who have worked on this issue over the years. The hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) have done a lot of work on it.
	The issue has been brought to my attention by people in both the urban and rural parts of my constituency. Yesterday, I took a petition containing the names of more than 3,000 of my constituents to Downing street. The petition is the result of a campaign that showed the depth of feeling in Edinburgh, and names are still flooding in. That is why I support the Bill, and I am glad that many Members have given it a fair hearing.
	I am not anti-fireworks, and do not favour an outright ban. Like many others I enjoy a good fireworks display, and those who have visited Edinburgh will know that my constituency is part of a city that hosts some of the most magnificent displays in the world, both at Hogmanay and during the Edinburgh festival. However, as has been said today, we need tighter restrictions—limits on the times of year during which fireworks can be bought and sold, and limits on the time of day during which they can be set off to end displays that take place throughout the night.
	Clause 7, which I consider the most important part of the Bill, addresses one of the main deficiencies in the current law: the lack of a proper system to license the sale of fireworks. The question of licensing has given rise to a great deal of debate north of the border following the introduction of a private Member's Bill in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Government will consult the Scottish Executive to ensure that the issue can be tackled comprehensively on a cross-border basis.
	We need the Bill because the current laws are not working, and because some retailers do not always behave responsibly and consider public safety. The Bill would provide an opportunity, which has never existed before, to require proper training of suppliers and retailers not only in the legal position but in simple matters such as storage. I was amazed to learn that such training did not already exist.
	Despite the current laws, serious problems are still being caused by the sale to under-age people. In parts of my constituency major problems are being caused by very young children. That is partly because a minority of shopkeepers—I stress that they are a minority—are still prepared to sell fireworks to under-age children despite the law.
	Clause 7 also makes a bold but necessary provision enabling licences to be issued for a set period only, reinforcing the Secretary of State's power effectively to limit the times of year in which fireworks are available. In some parts of the country they are sold throughout the year. When a voluntary code of practice fails, we must have a Bill to remedy the problem.

Paul Farrelly: Like many other Members, I have been inundated with complaints about the nuisance of fireworks and the distress that they cause children, dogs and other animals, and elderly people. Some of my constituents have asked me to investigate the possibility of a byelaw. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that national legislation such as this is needed, rather than a patchwork of local pilot schemes and byelaws?

John Barrett: Absolutely. The Bill has been a long time coming, but now that it is here it is very welcome.
	The Bill is urgently needed for another reason: animals need better protection. Much has been said about guide dogs for the blind. Last year, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is based in my constituency, produced a chilling report on the impact of firework misuse on animals following a comprehensive survey of Scottish vets. The report included a catalogue of stories relating to injuries and deaths caused by fireworks. In a single year, 8,000 animals needed veterinary attention, but perhaps more significant was the long period during which animals were exposed to firework injury and stress. They continued to suffer for many months after the event. Some of the worst instances cited in the report were deliberate attacks on animals with fireworks, which deserve total condemnation. There must be strict penalties to deal with people such as those described in the report.
	This is a popular Bill, and many who have spoken have already covered issues that I would have raised had I been called earlier. Let me end by repeating that the Bill is strongly supported in my constituency. The police and the fire services there tell me how much time they must spend responding to incidents involving fireworks, and those in medical centres tell me how many injuries they must treat. Vets and people involved with Edinburgh zoo tell me of the distress and deaths that fireworks cause. As I have said, the Bill has been a long time coming, but it is urgently needed and I give it my full support.

Bill Tynan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will be brief, because other Bills are on the agenda. I hope that other Members will understand and respect that.
	Hon. Members have shown today the strength of feeling, not only in the House but in the nation, on the question of fireworks. The turnout today was incredible, and that was down sometimes to organisation and sometimes to the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), an old campaigner in the House, gave me tremendous support and advice as regards organising to ensure that Members were in; I thank him for that. I also thank all colleagues for taking time to attend on a Friday, because I know how precious it can be to be in one's constituency. I am delighted.
	Once again I emphasise the broad support that the Bill has received from outside the House. The National Campaign for Firework Safety—one organisation that I may have inadvertently omitted to mention—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the explosives industry group, the CBI and the British Pyrotechnists Association have all been exceptionally helpful to me. In order to get consensus, I believed that it was necessary to have discussion and debate.
	I believe that the Bill is a timely, comprehensive and consensual solution to the problems of fireworks for the future. I commend it to the House.
	Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Keith Simpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I begin by providing some background to the Bill. Parliamentary interest in this issue arose out of an unsuccessful appeal to the Community Fund by the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal 2000 for a grant towards an endowment fund. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) introduced a private Member's Bill, the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, which sought to give the National Lottery Charities Board an additional power to consider, and indeed award, grants towards the endowment of charities under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended in 1998. The Bill received the support of every Norfolk Member, and many of us were present in the House and I spoke in support of that Bill at its Second Reading on 23 March 2001.

Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend also aware that that Bill received the implicit support of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Support, when it too recognised that there needs to be endowment to ensure, when capital grants are given, that progress can be made over the years in fulfilling the projects that they support?

Keith Simpson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who was present during that private Member's Bill debate on 23 March 2001. He is a leading member of the Select Committee; he adorns the Committee, and always speaks knowledgeably and with great force. I am grateful to him for drawing to the attention of the House the fact that the Select Committee particularly supported that private Member's Bill.
	I note that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) is in the Chamber and intends, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support the Bill. I received apologies from the hon. Member for Norwich, North, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). All those hon. Members support my Bill, as do many other hon. Members outside the fair county of Norfolk.
	I pay particular tribute to the hard work of the hon. Member for Norwich, North, who worked very hard in the last Parliament to get his Bill on the statute book. As you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill received a Second Reading, but the general election prevented it from reaching Third Reading. Following the general election, Lord Walpole of the county of Norfolk sought to introduce a similar Bill in the other place, but it was withdrawn before Second Reading.
	The purpose—the key objective—of my Bill is to make it clear that all lottery distributors, including the Community Fund, which is the lottery distributing body that gives grants to charities and the voluntary and community sector, can distribute lottery moneys by funding endowments, including permanent endowments, for the purpose of establishing endowments as well as for contributing to those already in existence.
	The powers of distributors under current statute give lottery distributing bodies power to distribute lottery money for meeting expenditure of the types specified in section 23 of the 1993 Act. However, it does not define what is meant by "for meeting expenditure" or contain any explicit reference to the funding of endowment funds. This private Member's Bill would amend those sections of the Act that refer to "for meeting expenditure" to clarify the fact that, in each case, the term includes funding of endowments.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport previously advised that distributors other than the Community Fund could fund endowments, and some distributing bodies have made such grants. The Bill would have retrospective effects, which are in clause 1(9).
	What are the benefits of the Bill? It would clarify the powers of all the distributors, put the Community Fund on the same legal footing as other distributors in being able to fund endowments and benefit charities such as the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" 2000 fund, which wants to apply for lottery funding and which I want to comment on.
	Many of us in Norfolk became involved with the appeal. With the support of the Eastern Daily Press, a fund was set up in Norfolk to endow the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. It aimed to raise £1 million in cash to establish the trust, which is registered as a charity, and to enable it to become long lasting as well as to provide financial help for an estimated 130,000 unpaid carers in the county of Norfolk. Its purpose was to respond to the identified need of such carers, and it sought to help with the purchase of equipment and improving the quality of life for carers.
	So far, the appeal has raised approximately £635,000 and has made more than 100 grants to pay for equipment, holidays and support for carers. I do not have to describe to the House the emotional, financial and physical burden endured by carers, or the loneliness, frustration and sheer exhaustion involved for many of them, some of whom are among the most elderly members of the community.
	I pay particular tribute to two groups of people who have been involved in the appeal. I must mention the work done by the editor, Mr. Peter Franzen, and the deputy editor, Mr. James Ruddy, of the Eastern Daily Press in driving the appeal forward and the trustees, in particular Mrs. Paddy Seligman, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the fund. As with other charity funds, it involves tens of thousands of local people and organisations, who run everything from jumble sales to sponsored walks.
	We in this country are proud that although considerable public expenditure is given to support the needy, and rightly so—I pay tribute to the work done by previous Governments and by this Government—a lot of money, work and sheer commitment are given by thousands of individual volunteers as well as the voluntary sector. It is not an either/or. They provide something that is extra that is not just money. The mission statement of the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal is
	"to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by providing financial aid and practical support to carers, either individually or through carers' groups."
	It is estimated that one in seven of the population in the United Kingdom are unpaid carers. In the county of Norfolk, that comes to some 110,000 people, which means about 12,000 in my constituency of Mid-Norfolk. It has been calculated that, nationally, carers save the Government approximately £34 billion a year, so anything that we can do to help carers not only saves the Government and the taxpayer literally billions of pounds but, most important of all for organisations such as the "We Care" campaign, brings relief to tens of thousands of carers, who often have to do a job in addition to looking after a sick parent, partner or child.
	At the moment, all lottery distributors are able to make grants to endowments but the Community Fund is not. Charities such as the "We Care" appeal and other local voluntary groups cannot bid to the fund to augment their endowment funds. My Bill would give the Community Fund power to fund endowments and would clarify further the powers for other distributors to make grants to endowments.
	What are the benefits of endowment funds? They can be a useful way of providing long-term revenue funding, particularly for voluntary sector bodies. They can enable bodies to plan strategically and with some certainty on the security of funding, enabling them to operate more effectively on behalf of their client groups. They can also improve creditability with potential third-party funders and partners secure in the knowledge that core funding is guaranteed.
	Nevertheless, I recognise that endowment funds require large sums up front to provide reasonable returns in the longer term and that future income levels are subject to variations in interest rates. However, the power in my Bill is a permissive rather than a mandatory power for distributors. It would ultimately be up to the distributors to determine how to treat applications for grants to endowment funds against other calls for lottery funding. I understand that, should my Bill be successful, the Minister's Department intends to assist distributors by issuing guidance.
	What is the regulatory cost of the Bill? I suppose that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would expect a Conservative to look with a gimlet eye at the cost of regulation. As a permissive power, there would be no regulatory cost to businesses or the voluntary sector resulting from my Bill. Indeed, the measure is intended to assist charities in the sector and other good causes by enabling them to apply for lottery funding to help set up or augment their endowment funds, and thus to help manage their operations more effectively.
	That power may result in additional calls on distributors' resources, but, ultimately, it would be a policy decision for distributors on how to prioritise such applications against others for non-endowment grants. Therefore, it would be a permissive, not a mandatory power. That is the great appeal of the Bill. There would be no impact on the expenditure or manpower of central or local government. I am sure that that would appeal not only to hon. Members present and the Minister but to the Treasury, which oversees all public expenditure.
	This Bill would affect all national lottery distributors' powers and therefore would be UK-wide. The policy for the lottery is a reserved issue, but I understand that the Bill has attracted the support of the devolved Administrations.
	This Bill is the outcome of a Bill that was introduced as a private Member's Bill in the previous Parliament. It has been redrafted and enjoys, I believe, widespread support. I hope that the Government can support the principles of my Bill, which will enable endowment funds to be drawn upon by a wide range of charities and voluntary organisations, not only directly saving national and local expenditure, but also bringing relief to the tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who work so hard to care for many of the most vulnerable people in our community.
	As Members of Parliament, it is not often that we can do something really constructive. Two or three years ago, my son, who was then about nine or 10, asked me about my job, and I explained about the parents of his friends in his class who were teachers, doctors or farmers; he understood all that. Then I attempted to explain what a Member of Parliament's life was like, and what one did. He fixed me with a sceptical look, as young children do, and said, "Yes Dad, but what exactly do you do?" That is usually the problem—but, occasionally, we in Parliament can do something practical beyond the narrow confines of party politics and the constraints of party discipline.
	I hope that the House will approve the Bill today. I commend it, and hope that it will find widespread support.

Anthony D Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing a high place in the ballot and introducing the Bill. My comments will be very brief, first because he has already adequately covered all the points, and secondly because there are three or four other private Members' Bills to be debated.
	It is hard not to feel a slight sense of déjà vu as we discuss this Bill, because we debated a similar Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) two year ago. As we all know, that Bill eventually failed because of the general election, but we hope that the same fate does not await the Bill before us today.
	The fact that we are again assembled here today to debate a Bill whose main aim is to allow lottery distributors to fund endowments is a remarkable testament to the degree of cross-party support for the idea, because it was a Labour Member who introduced the private Member's Bill in the last Parliament, and the Bill that we are now debating was introduced by a Conservative Member. If I can be a little parochial for a moment, I might add that it is also a testament to the unity of the hon. Members representing the county of Norfolk, because they have been the driving force behind this legislation.
	I pay tribute to those who support the Bill, but I must also congratulate the Eastern Daily Press on its "We Care" appeal. It was the EDP that originally drew attention to the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that the Bill seeks to address. I know that the appeal's director, Mrs. Paddy Seligman, has worked hard to raise funds, and I add my congratulations and thanks not only to her but to Peter Franzen, the editor, and James Ruddy, as well as to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk.
	I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for Sport, who is here today, also support the Bill, so we hope that in due course it will make it on to the statute book. The purpose of the Bill is expressly to permit all lottery distributors to distribute lottery moneys by funding endowments, including permanent endowments—both establishing endowments and contributing to endowments already in existence.
	When we debated this matter in 2001, there was some discussion about whether it was a good idea to make the change. It was pointed out that granting an endowment would inevitably tie up a relatively large amount of capital, so it might be better for the money to be distributed to more recipients in the short term. It was further argued that the current low returns on endowments were another reason not to make the change. Although I appreciate those arguments, I do not agree with them. The Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal provides a perfect case study of why the proposed change should be made.
	The amount raised by the appeal stands at £650,000, which is a magnificent effort. All the income produced from investing that sum goes in awards to carers throughout Norfolk. I was pleased to learn that, as the capital is invested for safe income rather than capital growth, the rate of return has not been badly affected by recent falls in the stock market. However, the "We Care" appeal target is £1 million because such an investment would provide a sufficient return to allow the organisers to deal adequately with the requests for assistance that they receive from carers throughout Norfolk. I am told that they are not always able to grant the full amount requested, even in the most deserving cases, because they do not have enough funds. Although they have demonstrated great persistence, determination and professionalism to raise £650,000, the law does not allow them to apply to the lottery for assistance to reach the £1 million target simply because the fund is constituted as an endowment.
	It seems wrong in principle that those who are in charge of the various lottery distributors, who discharge the difficult duty of deciding which groups should benefit from lottery funds, should have their hands tied by not being allowed to make grants to endowments. It may be that the present low rates of return on investments and the long-term tying up of capital militate against the funding of endowments in some cases, but surely we should trust those who have been empowered to make such decisions and allow them the flexibility to consider the widest range of possible applicants for the widest range of benefit to the community.
	In any case, there is another thing in favour of funding endowments, as I told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when it invited responses to its Green Paper, "Review of Lottery Funding". Put simply, the long-term and stable nature of the funds that an endowment provides is desirable. No Government have stressed the value of long-term economic stability, nor done as much to bring it about, as this Government. So if we can give the lottery fund distributors the freedom to encourage that outcome for those who receive their grants, we should do so.
	I understand that there is a difference between today's Bill and the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North in 2001. This Bill is more widely drawn and specifically allows all the lottery distributing bodies to fund endowments. The purpose of the previous Bill was to allow the National Lottery Charities Board to fund endowments, which, at the moment, it is specifically not allowed to do. The situation for the other lottery funding boards is unclear but would be clarified by the Bill. A welcome effect of that would be to include not only charities but the range of voluntary groups as possible recipients of lottery endowment funding.
	I know from my constituency how deeply ingrained the culture of volunteering is in our society. Last year, I held a reception for representatives of voluntary groups in the borough and was shocked to find that in my constituency of 90,000 people there are no fewer than 350 charitable and voluntary groups. I am hopeful that, if the Bill is passed, some of them will be successful in applying for lottery endowment funds. So I hope that it proceeds with the wholehearted support of the House.

Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his success in coming high in the ballot for private Members' Bills and on taking the opportunity to reintroduce a Bill, suitably amended, that secured widespread support when first introduced by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) two years ago.
	The original Bill focused on the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 which prevented the National Lottery Charities Board from distributing funds to local charities in the form of endowments. A particular charity was mentioned at that time and the change was proposed in a campaign run by the Eastern Daily Press, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Norwich, North, known as the "We Care" appeal 2000. The aim was to raise £1 million to establish an endowment fund for unpaid carers in Norfolk. In my hon. Friend's eloquent speech, he re-emphasised the importance of funding carers in his county. Not only is that vital to him and his constituents, but it serves as a timely reminder of how important carers are in our communities throughout the country.
	When the original Bill was debated, although there was general support for it, concern was expressed on all sides about its rather narrow and prescriptive proposals, linked as they were to only one of the seven lottery fund distributors—the National Lottery Charities Board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said at the time:
	"The question for us is whether the proposed change is desirable, whether it would improve the working of the NLCB and provide greater equity of opportunity to obtain grants from the board, or whether it would have adverse consequences for the work of the board or the operation of the lottery funding bodies."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 594.]
	It is the latter point that is crucial. Would a facility offered exclusively to the NLCB have adverse repercussions for any of the other distributing bodies? This point was not teased out in Committee because the original Bill fell with the looming general election of 2001. However, the Government did then share that concern, along with spokespeople on the Opposition Benches.
	These problems have, in our view, been properly and wisely addressed in the amended Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk. It adds to the powers of distributing bodies by including the distribution of money for the purpose of establishing, or contributing to, endowments in each appropriate section of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993: sections 22, 25, 25B, 38, 41, 43 and 44. My hon. Friend's Bill now gives each and every distributor of lottery funds the option of contributing either to the establishment of a new endowment, or to an existing one.
	The previous debate also cited the endowment funds of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts as a precedent already established by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and as a template for possible national lottery endowment funds to follow, given the similarity between NESTA and various registered charities. Not only was the method of funding by endowment at that time praised; the freedom and continuity afforded to NESTA trustees, without undue interference from Government, was noted as both preferable and positive when targeting particular groups in need of support.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk has pointed out today, however, one of the downsides to the endowment route is the variation in interest rates. Only a few weeks ago, the Minister and I confronted each other, in a statutory instrument Committee, on this very point. NESTA, in receipt of an original endowment, found that the income that it was anticipating—and was presumably spending—had decreased because of lower interest rates. NESTA appealed to the Government and to the Minister's Department for additional capital moneys to put into the endowment fund. So a real problem has raised its head in respect of NESTA, which, at the time, was described as a useful template for others to follow and to adapt.
	Another potentially detrimental aspect of the Bill's proposed amendments is that in funding endowments, less money would be readily available for projects in need of immediate funding. This is due, of course, to the large sums needed to initiate an endowment fund. Potentially, that would deny projects immediate funding in the short term. However, the benefits of establishing an endowment fund that can provide funding for an unfixed and prolonged period may prove more advantageous and beneficial in the long run.
	As I understand it, the legal position for an endowment is that the money is conferred upon that endowment in perpetuity. Indeed, the Bill's amendment to section 44 of the 1993 Act specifically refers to "permanent endowment". Of course, that has the considerable advantage for the recipient bodies of guaranteed continuity of income, and overcomes the problems faced by many bodies currently in receipt of lottery funds, including charities, when their short-term funding—usually of three to five years—comes to an end. But what happens to endowed funds if the recipient body ceases to exist, for whatever reason? Does existing legislation allow sufficient control to avoid funds falling into the wrong hands or being misappropriated in any way? Who would have the ultimate responsibility? Would it be the recipient charity controlling the endowment, or the lottery distributing body that countenanced the funding to the endowment in the first place?
	This Bill highlights an anomaly in the original National Lottery etc. Act which denied the funding of endowments by omitting it from the defined expenditure of the various funding distribution boards. No reason has been specified for denying funding of, or contribution to, endowment funds. Since the original Act, the NESTA fund has provided a framework, and precedents, for the establishment of endowments in all areas of national lottery funding.
	As I have said, the short-term effects of a change may be detrimental in denying money to organisations that require immediate funding, as the cash will be directed into the establishment of an endowment fund. However, by allowing the funding of endowments, the long-term benefits include prolonged and sustained funding to worthwhile projects.
	On this side of the House, we will need reassurance on the technical issues that the Bill raises. However, we are confident that those can be teased out in Committee. The lottery has been a major success since its introduction by the Government of the former Member for Huntingdon. Nevertheless, it is in need of reform to meet changing circumstances. We believe that the Bill introduces welcome—although overdue—reform. We intend to give it a fair wind on this, its Second Reading.

Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on the persuasive way in which he introduced the Bill. He has made great efforts to ensure that this is a non-partisan, cross-party Bill. He has involved the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright)—from the opposite side of the House—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who I am sure would want me to do all I can to expedite the progress of the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk highlighted something that I recognise from constituency work. Organisations that are involved with carers face particular difficulties in raising funding. It is a difficult and unique problem. In my constituency, there is a wonderful group called Home Link, which is associated with St. Augustine's church. The group specialises in providing day respite care for carers. Carers come, and their elderly or disabled relatives are left for the day. Such organisations perform an enormously valuable social function, but they genuinely find it difficult to raise funding because they fall down the crack between health and social services. They may get a bit of cash now and then from hospitals, but they are not directly related to health care and do not provide mainstream primary hospital care; similarly, social services departments are always strapped for cash and are therefore reluctant to take on optional items such as respite care. As a result, such groups struggle constantly. They have to pay professional fundraisers and find themselves on a perpetual treadmill of fundraising activities. I can therefore see the logic of what the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk is proposing. Secure, long-term funding that provides an income stream is exactly what such groups require to give them stability.

Michael Fabricant: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I feel strongly that funding of this type should not be used to breach the additionality principle, but does the hon. Gentleman feel that hospices should be considered in this discussion? Although partly funded by the state, they are mainly funded by charitable organisations.

Vincent Cable: That is a sensible and helpful suggestion, and I am sure that hospices could be included if this Bill progresses. The basic problem that hospices face is a lack of government support. Many of us have tried to address that issue.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about NESTA. It provides a legal precedent and it also handles large amounts of money. I understand that the endowment for NESTA is about £200 million. That involves a substantial undertaking and provides a lot of useful funding, particularly in scientific innovation and the arts.
	My final point is not a criticism of the Bill, but I would like to ask a question that the Minister may also wish to address. What effect will this type of approach to the use of lottery funding have on the overall success of the lottery?
	Currently, we are not dealing with a successful concern; the lottery is in considerable trouble and people are increasingly reluctant to use it. There are many reasons for that. Lotteries all over the world peak and then decline as people become used to them and get bored. There may be a particular problem for the UK lottery because it has such huge jackpot prizes with a small tail of lesser prizes, so the incentive to keep playing it is eroded.
	A subsidiary reason for the loss of appeal is that many punters see only a distant connection between the money that they invest and the good causes. There is a danger that endowments might make that problem worse. The punter putting in his or her money will not see the end product because the money will go into a financial investment vehicle, although of course it will be working for good causes. Considerable promotion will be required to explain to the public that endowment is a useful good cause and that they will not lose the direct connection between the money that they put on the lottery today and the money given to good causes tomorrow. That is a psychological danger and it should be addressed, although it is not a fundamental argument against the proposals. It is part of the lottery problem.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When we get some of our own money back from the European Union, we have to erect a big plaque and a flag to show that it is EU money, so perhaps it should be compulsory to do something similar for anything funded under the auspices of the Bill—shortly, I hope, to become an Act. Perhaps the Minister might consider that point.

Vincent Cable: In my area, such appreciation is advertised and expressed to the fund for most projects that receive substantial lottery funding, but I am not sure that we should make that practice highly prescriptive, nor what penalties should be imposed on charities that do not show due appreciation. However, the hon. Gentleman obviously has a fund of ideas, so perhaps he should make a speech and give us the benefit of them.
	That is the limit of my contribution. I acknowledge the effective way in which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk introduced the Bill. I support him and my colleagues and hope that we can consider the more technical aspects in Committee in due course.

Michael Fabricant: My chance to speak has come sooner than I anticipated; I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his ingenuity in coming so high in the ballot and on his good sense in promoting the Bill. I was in the Chamber when the earlier Bill was discussed. It had support on both sides of the House and only the general election, which sadly had to come about, meant that it did not pass at that time.
	The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said:
	"The Government sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North"—
	as has been said, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was the promoter of the original Bill—
	"is trying to achieve. We may wish to offer technical improvements should his Bill make further progress, but we shall not oppose it today."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 621.]
	I hope that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport will treat my hon. Friend's Bill in the same way—[Interruption.]. He nods in affirmation. There will not be a general election in the immediate future, although one might wonder about that given the way things are going, so I hope that the Bill will become law sooner rather than later.
	I very much welcome the Bill. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, one in seven people are carers and the Bill is particularly directed at the National Lottery Charities Board. The measure would provide many opportunities for lottery money to be used to support carers throughout the country. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the money need not be used only for that; some of it could also be used for hospices, because the Government do not support hospices at present.
	Many people have been touched by hospices, either because relatives are there or because they work in charities that support hospices. I have a hospice in my constituency—the St. Giles hospice—and huge amounts of effort go into supporting it. If it could receive additional support by virtue of this Bill becoming an Act, many people will appreciate it.
	As others have pointed out, this measure has expanded since the original Bill, as it will also take into its orbit the other lottery boards. At the moment, there is a lack of clarity. I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk that the Select Committee, under the flamboyant chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), examined the funding of organisations by lotteries. It was accepted that, often, large grants are given to museums, theatres and so on, which then find that they do not have the money to fund running costs. I am therefore particularly pleased that this Bill will enable lottery boards to provide endowments—if those are the most suitable means—for organisations such as theatres and museums. I suppose that I should mention that one museum in my constituency, the Erasmus Darwin museum, would be a particularly suitable recipient of such funds. That would provide additional flexibility to organisations such as the Arts Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund to provide funding for those organisations, which are so worth while.
	I appreciate, however, the caveats that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). Controls must exist to ensure that, over time, moneys received from long-term endowments are used wisely and as was originally planned. I hope that the Minister will assure me and other Members that such provisions will be in place to ensure that moneys cannot be misused.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham talked about the fact that moneys coming into the lotteries have fallen. That is true. Their total income has fallen by something in the order of 5 per cent. since April. Camelot says that interest in the main lotto game is declining for all sorts of reasons, one of which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, was simply familiarity with lotteries. That was not helped by somebody—I think she was the chief executive of Camelot—stating the obvious fact that one stands a greater chance of being struck by lightning than of winning £6 million or more. For whatever reason, however, income has fallen.
	Camelot has said that one reason why interest in lotteries has fallen is that grants have been made to unpopular causes. It would be interesting to consider a couple of examples. The Rhondda Community Development Association received £200,000, which sounds fine until we find that the money was to improve the lives of Bolivian miners. At least a kind of synergy exists between Bolivian miners and miners in the Rhondda. The Blue Cross animal charity, however, received more than £180,000 to expand a helpline for mourners of pets. When income has fallen by 5 per cent., and there are so many worthwhile causes, one wonders about grants to mourners of pets. I remember once being mugged, and I had ladies from Victim Support constantly phoning me up, and I had to say, "Actually, I'm okay." If Victim Support does not receive lottery money, why should mourners of pets do so?
	To me, the most amusing example, however, was the £295,000 given to a Worcestershire charity to breed giant guinea pigs in Peru. I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have walked in Peru, and I can tell you that giant guinea pigs are not kept as pets in Peru; they are eaten. I have to confess—I know that I will receive many letters for having done so—that I have eaten a giant guinea pig in Peru.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that my son's girlfriend is currently in Peru, but that has as much relevance to the debate as his comments.

Michael Fabricant: I am fascinated to know that, Sir. I only hope that your son's girlfriend does not try a giant guinea pig in Peru or elsewhere.
	We must think wisely and carefully about where the money goes. It is particularly poignant to learn that the Royal British Legion was refused £500,000 for a residential home and that the Battle of Britain Historical Society was refused money for a memorial. We must always consider carefully how the money is spent. On balance, the Bill is overdue. Personally, I think that it should not be called the National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill but simply the Norfolk Bill. I commend all Norfolk Members as well as the Eastern Daily Press on being its progenitors.

Bill Wiggin: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is fast becoming a national treasure. I wish that he had time to tell us how the guinea pig tasted before he was stopped in his tracks.
	The lottery has not always been disastrous in its handing out of funds. I should like to touch on one or two successful appeals in my constituency. Herefordshire Headway provides education, day care and rehabilitation for adults with brain injury, and was lucky enough to receive £198,000. Bromyard public hall, Age Concern Leominster, and North Herefordshire and Tenbury area council for voluntary service all received lottery funding, for which they are extremely grateful. I was deeply concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) found that it was occasionally difficult for a Member of Parliament to be constructive. I suspect that he was referring to his time in the Whips Office.
	It is important to declare my interest as a trustee of the Eveson charitable trust, which gives large donations to charities. The Bishop of Hereford, other trustees and I spend a great deal of time and effort to try to ensure that the best causes receive funding and focus particularly on who will do the most good locally. I do not envy people who have the job of making such decisions on behalf of the lottery. It would be a tragedy if they were prohibited from giving endowments, so I hope that the Bill is successful in altering that. I should also like to declare an interest as someone who has been lucky enough to get five numbers in the lottery. Unfortunately, I was part of a large syndicate of 18 colleagues, and we won the princely sum of £25 each. I sat next to the young man who chose the numbers and I was appalled to overhear a colleague say, "Well, why didn't you get the sixth one right, you idiot?" That just shows how ungrateful some people can be.
	When looking at endowments to charities, we should remember that their purpose is to ensure that charities' good work continues. I recall a visit to the volunteer bureau in Leominster, where I witnessed something that most Members who have visited such bureaux will have witnessed. People were trying desperately hard to do something good—working hard for charity—only to find that halfway through their term they had to turn their attention away from charitable work and start to concentrate on funding their work for the next three years. Endowments would make that unnecessary, so the proposed change is thoroughly commendable.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for mentioning the hospice movement. I am a patron of St. Michael's hospice in Bartestree in my constituency. Palliative care touches people so intensely personally, and the Government should consider the funding of it.
	I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on this important subject. Like all those involved in charitable work, I believe that we should do it to the best of our ability and ensure that the work continues unabated. To that end, I support the Bill.

Richard Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his successful introduction of the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, it is pleasing that he took the opportunity afforded to him to bring the Bill before the House. I know how much the issue addressed by the Bill means to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the wider Norfolk constituencies, many of whom are present and have contributed to the debate.
	I put on record a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) who, as has been mentioned, introduced a similar Bill back in 2001, seeking at the time to apply the Bill's provisions solely to the Community Fund. My hon. Friend's Bill reached its Third Reading before the general election intervened to prevent further consideration. That was unfortunate, to some more so than to others. Although we believed the Bill to be technically flawed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) explained from the Front Bench, we were sympathetic to the principle. That, together with the help of my Department, has enabled the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk to produce a Bill that is technically sounder than the previous one.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the lottery in general and the subject of good causes in particular. Several hon. Members have referred to their experience with the lottery. I remind the House what an institution the lottery is, and credit for its existence is due to both sides of the House. The lottery has raised £12.4 billion for good causes. One or two have been highlighted today, including guinea pigs in Peru. That £12.4 billion has benefited 127,000 individual projects. Independent audit has shown the UK lottery to be among the most efficient lottery operators in the world, and it is considered to return more money to good causes than do lotteries in many other countries. The lotto, which is a large part of the portfolio—Camelot is looking into that—ranks in the top two lottos in the world. By any standards, it has been a huge success.

Bob Spink: I am listening carefully to the Minister. Does he accept that it would help the lottery to get more money in and facilitate endowments under the Bill if we could attract more support for the lottery? One way of doing that is to ensure that the lottery money is spread more evenly among the constituencies, and that constituencies such as mine, which receive only the bottom 5 per cent. of receipts, receive more lottery funds.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman was successful in raising questions on the matter a little while ago, and I responded in detail. He knows that, with agreement across the House, we have tried to refine the distribution of lottery receipts for good causes, and we will continue to work at that. I told him that I would write to him about the possibility of his constituents making more applications—they can get the money only if they make an application, and unfortunately his constituents had not made as many applications as others.
	Finally on that point, I have had discussions—as late as this week—with Camelot about hon. Members' genuine concerns about the decline in lottery sales, although, as I say, such things are relative and must be put in context. Camelot is very mindful of that and, I think, will produce some innovatory ideas about how it can return to the growth path and encourage more people to participate.
	I wish to say very genuinely that although it is easy to make fun of one or two of the causes being supported, it is incumbent on all hon. Members to get behind the lottery because at the end of the day all our constituents gain from it. If hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree on that, it will be a win-win situation for everyone. Indeed, at the beginning of this month the tally was that about £135 million had been awarded to good causes just in Norfolk, including £21.6 million from the Community Fund to charitable and voluntary bodies.
	We have heard very firmly that the Bill was originally inspired by the Eastern Daily Press "We Care 2000" appeal, which was launched back in October 1998, with the aim of raising £1 million to establish an endowment fund entitled "The Norfolk Millennium Trust for Carers". So I join many hon. Members in saying "Thank you very much" to the Eastern Daily Press, particularly its editor and deputy editor, as well as the fund's trustees who have undoubtedly done a sterling job.
	It is pleasing that, from time to time, the House focuses on groups of people throughout the country. We sometimes forget carers. Indeed, they are the unsung heroes who deserve our admiration and support for the work they do week in, week out; year in, year out. It is great that the House can acknowledge that, and a paper, such as the Eastern Daily Press, can bring that to the fore.
	It is unfortunate that the existing lottery legislation does not expressly refer to the power of distributors to fund endowments. I am sure that it was not the deliberate intention, when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was originally drafted, to prevent any distributor from awarding grants to establish or augment endowment funds, so it is good that we can take this opportunity to tidy up the legislation in the way that the Bill will allow.
	I asked my office to take a quick look at the other endowments, as we tend to home in on the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which is the big one. I wish to say briefly that the New Opportunities Fund has given £50 million to a 10-year endowment, as part of the fair share initiative. The Millennium Commission has awarded £16 million, as a 10-year expendable endowment, to the millennium seed bank. Under the stabilisation and recovery programme, the Arts Council of England has given three awards to endowments, totalling less than £2 million. The Heritage Lottery Fund has also given a few awards to endowments—probably three or four—totalling about £15 million. So we can see that endowments have been used effectively to top up or stabilise certain funding.
	I hope that we can tidy up the legislation that is already on the statute book That is why I welcome the Bill, which expressly provides all distributors, including the Community Fund, with the power to use lottery money to set up or contribute to endowments if they choose to do so. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has highlighted, the Bill will clarify that all the distributing bodies have powers to fund endowments, so it will ensure that charitable bodies are not put at a disadvantage in gaining access to lottery funding. Expressly enabling charities to create or augment endowment funds through lottery money would allow voluntary sector organisations to manage their funds much more effectively.
	The Bill also fits in well with the key theme emerging from the Department's review of lottery distribution, and I refer the hon. Member for Twickenham to the review that we have undertaken. A number of announcements have been made earlier this week, including on bringing together the community programme and the NOF.
	The general thrust of that consultation has been mentioned in the debate, and we must ensure that lottery decision making ties in with what people believe the lottery should be used for in their localities. That would help to bring certainty back, and we will endeavour to achieve that over the coming months and years. Making lottery funds more responsive to the needs and priorities of local communities is important. Giving distributors express powers to fund endowments will give them much more flexibility to respond to the needs of applicants and help to give charitable organisations a little more flexibility in managing their resources.
	I would now like to respond to some concerns highlighted in the debate. Several hon. Members asked about the powers that we would have to make sure that the moneys would continue to be spent well. Section 23(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a statement on financial requirements to each distributing body. It is quite a wide power, so the House can be reasonably certain that we will keep control of the matter. However, it is always possible for the House to challenge the Department or the Secretary of State.
	We recognise the concerns expressed over the value for money of grants to endowment funds. Although endowment funds can be a useful way of providing long-term revenue funding for voluntary bodies and enable them to manage their funds in a more effective way, it is true—we have had experience of this—that they require large sums of money up front to provide a reasonable level of revenue in the longer term and that future income levels are subject to variations in interest rates. Nevertheless, I do not believe that those factors should prevent us from clarifying the powers of distributors in this area. As has been suggested, this is a permissive, rather than mandatory measure, enabling distributors to grant funding for endowments should they choose to do so. It will be a judgment for the distributors.
	There is little evidence that distributors intend to use the power on a regular basis or that they would be flooded with applications for grants to endowment funds. Nevertheless, I can announce that, should this Bill proceed—I hope that it will—my Department will issue guidance to distributors on this matter, and that a draft of the guidance will be made available to peers during the Lords stages of the Bill.
	Another related issue has been the effect of the measure on non-endowment applications. As I have already said, endowment funds can and do tie up large sums of money in the short term. This is, however, a factor that distributors will need to bear in mind in the grant assessment process against other, non-endowment applications. I expect this issue to be flagged up in my Department's guidance note to distributors. Distributors will need to make difficult decisions on the best use of lottery funding, but it should be remembered that they already have to make hard choices in assessing grant applications. The contributions of hon. Members have already made that clear, and there will be nothing to prevent bodies from applying for non-endowment funding.
	This has been a good debate and the Bill has received all-party support. However, when I read the Hansard report of the previous debate on the issue, I saw that the then right hon. Member for South Norfolk—now Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market—made a number of predictions. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk has not gone that down route, but Lord MacGregor responded to the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) had made in the opening remarks of that debate by saying:
	"I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot, and I am delighted that he has chosen this subject. I agree with everything that he said, apart from two points. In his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), he suggested that his seat might be in jeopardy. I assure him that that is not the case. My hon. Friend has done remarkable work in his constituency, which will be well rewarded by an increased majority."
	The then hon. Member for North Norfolk lost his seat. Lord MacGregor continued:
	"The other point on which I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that he hoped to be performing in one of the appeal's charitable concerts in the summer. I do not know when the election will be, but I am sure that he is hoping that it will be way beyond the summer, because I am sure that he will not want to participate as an ex-Member."—[Official Report, 23 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 587.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North was re-elected. Those predictions were not very accurate.
	In our view, the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said, my Department has also prepared a regulatory impact assessment for the Bill that I will place in the Libraries of both Houses.
	We consider the Bill useful, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing it. It will clarify the powers of all distributors to fund endowments should they choose to do so, and will put charities on a footing equal to that of other applicants for lottery grants. I am happy to offer the Government's support.

Keith Simpson: I shall speak briefly, because another hon. Member wishes to speak on his Bill.
	I am much heartened by the support of a number of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for his support, and for what he said about the impact of charities on his constituency. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly raised points about the future of the national lottery, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who also raised technical issues that I hope will be dealt with in Committee if I am lucky enough to secure a Second Reading. I thank him for his generous support. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) provided strong support; we shall probably never know about the giant guinea pigs in Peru, but they may be the subject of a future Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was also very supportive.
	I thank the Minister for his comments and his general support. I was grateful for the technical help that I received from officials in his Department. He mentioned the former Member for North Norfolk, my friend David Prior. I know that, despite his slightly chiding comment, the Minister will accept that David Prior raised thousands of pounds for the Eastern Daily Press "We Care 2000" campaign. I also know that Members on both sides of the House believe he will be a great success as chairman of the Norwich and Norfolk hospital trust.
	Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Marine Safety Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Brian Iddon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill principally concerns merchant vessels. It contains exclusions for naval vessels and Government ships. I was assisted in its preparation by the Secretary of State's representative Robin Middleton—of whom more later—and John Mairs of the Department of Transport, as well as their staff. I thank them all for their advice, and for their hard work in drafting the Bill.
	I have always been fascinated by the sea. Although I now live inland and represent an inland constituency, I was born on the banks of the River Douglas, which flows into the Ribble and out to sea in an estuary between Southport and Lytham St. Anne's. I was once quite familiar with the Lancashire coastline, including the dangerous Ribble marshes. My secondary school education was in Southport, and I also attended the local technical college. My father's business interests often took him to Liverpool and he let me travel with him—usually by lorry—to the docks to pick up cattle food for a mill in our village, Tarleton, on the west Lancashire plain.
	In those days, the Liverpool docks were extremely busy with the transatlantic trade. The largest ships in the world visited them—both merchant ships and cruise liners owned by famous companies such as Cunard and P&O. Liverpool had an overhead railway—long since demolished, sadly—which ran the full length of the docks. My father and I often took a return trip on the railways just to get a glimpse of those impressively large ships.
	I have had few regrets in my life, but one is that I never learned to sail. Another is that I have never owned a boat, although one of the happiest times in my life was spent crewing a catamaran hired in Teignmouth along the French coast and around the Channel islands.
	Even though nearly all my constituents are land-lubbers, many of them—possibly all—are dependent on the sea in one way or another, so the Bill is as relevant to them as to any coastal constituent. Some of us use cruise ships; others cross the seas using ro-ro ferries, hovercraft or other means of marine transport. In any case, most of us are reliant on goods transported by merchant vessels. I am told that worldwide trade by sea has increased significantly and is still increasing. At the same time, fortunately, the number of incidents at sea is going down. Nevertheless there are still far too many accidents involving shipping, and many lives are still lost at sea.
	When I was elected to Parliament in 1997, my attention was drawn to the existence of the all-party parliamentary MV Derbyshire group. Like the existing members of the group at that time, I was astonished by how long it had taken to get justice for those who had sailed on that ship, lost their lives and, in the case of the crew, even been accused of negligence; but that is another story, which we have placed on the record previously.
	Nevertheless, it is a sad fact that bulk carriers are still going down at the rate of one a month worldwide. Since the Derbyshire sank in 1980, 3,000 seafarers have lost their lives on bulk carriers alone. The MV Derbyshire group now concentrates on improvements in marine safety. That is why I have decided to take charge of this Bill, which I truly hope will have the Government's support and that of all the Opposition parties.
	We are never far away from a major disaster at sea. The most recent incidents best known to us are the sinking of the Tricolor and the loss of the Prestige, noteworthy for the fact that the Spanish authorities refused to give the Prestige a place of refuge, which might have allowed most of its oil to be offloaded. Of course, pollution is a common consequence of sea disasters, and that is what the Bill is partly about: avoiding pollution and dealing with it when it occurs.
	A national contingency plan for marine pollution from shipping and offshore installations exists. Command and control of the tasks associated with a major maritime incident involving pollution, both marine and terrestrial, is divided into four distinct theatres of operation: search and rescue, salvage, clean-up of the sea and clean-up of the shoreline.
	Let me give the House some statistics, because no debate in this place is complete without them. Currently the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—MCA—receives more than 1,000 reports of pollution incidents a year. Between 6 October 1999 and 31 December 2002, the SOSREP was involved in a total of 262 incidents and was required to give directions in 30 of those. In 30 of those incidents that he was involved in, there was a spillage of oil greater than half a litre. The incidents are almost equally spread between summer and winter seasons. They involve all kinds of ships, most commonly general cargo vessels, 53 incidents; fishing vessels, 45 incidents; tankers, 34 incidents; and bulk carriers, 23 incidents. There were 65 engine failures, 52 groundings of vessels, 38 collisions and 25 fires amongst the incidents involving the SOSREP during that period.
	In the 10 years from 1991 to 2001, there were 347 fires on vessels within the United Kingdom 12-mile limit. On 21 December 1997, for example, the Kukawa, a ro-ro cargo vessel, developed an engine room fire 25 miles north-west of Guernsey, which spread into the accommodation. The fire services of both Guernsey and Cornwall were involved. The ship was towed into Falmouth and the fire extinguished, an incident that lasted three days. This is the important point. A court ruling declared that the fire services could not recover their costs, which was a serious blow to offshore firefighting provision in the UK.
	The Suffolk fire service's last offshore incident was extinguishing a fire in the engine room of the passenger ferry Norsea, off Norfolk on 2 September 2002. Firemen were airlifted to the ship to assist the crew. Funding problems have caused them to revoke their declared facility status today.
	Public attention in the UK focused on the impact of major oil pollution in March 1967 when the tanker Torrey Canyon hit the Seven Stones rocks between the Scilly Isles and Land's End.

Michael Fabricant: Sounds like Tory Canyon.

Brian Iddon: I beg the House's pardon.

Michael Fabricant: Do not blame us.

Brian Iddon: I am fixated on Tories. The pace of interest quickened with the 1993 Braer disaster in the Shetlands, which led to a report by Lord Donaldson that resulted in the strategic placement around our coast of the first Government emergency towing vessels. Today, those number four. Then came the Sea Empress disaster, as recently as 1996.
	Between 1967 and 1996, a statutory basis for the Government's powers of intervention in such incidents was created. Those are enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which was amended by the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. Following the Sea Empress incident at Milford Haven, Lord Donaldson conducted a review of salvage and intervention, and of their command and control. His report was published in March 1999, and one of its recommendations was the establishment of a Secretary of State's representative, or SOSREP, as the post has become known.
	The holder of that post, Robin Middleton, is based at the MCA's headquarters in Southampton. The MCA came into being on 1 April 1998 as a result of the merger between the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency. Lord Donaldson recommended that the
	"SOSREP must be a considerable, and, preferably, charismatic, personality".
	I can assure the House that Robin Middleton certainly is that. Although his office is based in the MCA's headquarters, he is independent of it and answerable directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Of course, the SOSREP works extremely closely with the MCA.
	I emphasise that the SOSREP's intervention powers are regarded as ones to be used only in exceptional circumstances. Provided that the control of an incident at sea is going well, the SOSREP merely monitors that incident. Only in cases that appear to be getting out of hand will he take over control and command of the incident.
	Although our coastal waters extend for 12 miles around the UK coastline, the UK's pollution zone—the zone of responsibility for dealing with marine pollution or even the threat of it—extends 200 miles seaward, save where it meets the pollution zone of another state. That happens in the English channel, the North sea and the Irish sea.
	Since the post of SOSREP was established, two gaps have been identified in his powers, which the Bill is intended to rectify. Clause 1 would give the SOSREP powers to make directions when he takes over an incident, which he does not possess. The 1995 Act would be amended by the insertion of proposed new section 108A in part 4. The safety directions that clause 1 refers to are set out in schedule 1, which would become new schedule 3A to the Act.
	One of the greatest difficulties for those who deal with such incidents is finding a place of refuge for a stricken vessel. Under section 137 of the 1995 Act, as amended, the SOSREP may give directions to the owner, master or pilot of a vessel, the salvor and the harbourmaster, or the harbour authority where the vessel is in waters that are regulated or managed by a harbour authority. However, in an incident, the SOSREP cannot issue a direction to the riparian owners and managers of facilities such as berths, wharves and jetties to require them to make their facilities available to help to deal with that incident.
	My Bill would empower the SOSREP to commandeer such facilities, as and when they are required, to deal much more effectively with a stricken vessel. Let me illustrate that through an important real-life example. In July last year, a fully laden oil tanker was approaching a jetty to unload its cargo when it suffered an engine fault. The master did not want to shut down his engines at sea in case he could not restart them and lost control of the ship. For purely economic reasons, a leading oil company would not allow that tanker to berth at its jetty to offload the oil. That might have prevented other tankers berthing while the ship's engines were being repaired. Instead the ship was sent out to sea again in the eye of a gale. Clearly, that was an unsafe practice that could have had serious consequences. My Bill would give the SOSREP the powers to direct that such ships should be berthed in order to offload their cargoes of oil. Fortunately, the SOSREP in that case was able to issue a direction to the ship's master for him to re-enter fresh water in Milford Haven and a tug was placed on standby.
	Lord Donaldson recommended in his report, on page 13, paragraph 29 and again on page 26, paragraph 2.9, that the Government be given the powers to require the aid of
	"the riparian owners or managers of facilities, such as berths, wharfs and jetties, which may well be required to moor a stricken vessel whilst a potentially polluting cargo is discharged."
	Without going into too much detail, because the details are given in the explanatory notes, schedule 1 to the Bill, which will become schedule 3A to the 1995 Act and entitled "Safety directions", details the circumstances under which those powers would be activated and enforced. The ships to which the schedule applies are detailed too, and allowances are contained in the Bill for the Government to pay compensation as and when required to do so, for interruption of business when a facility is put out of commercial use for some time.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He has recognised expertise in this area. Samuel Plimsoll, a former Member of the House, would be proud of him. I am here to support the hon. Gentleman. Does he have any estimate of the number of times that the SOSREP might be called on to use those powers in the Bill?

Brian Iddon: I am told by those who know better than me that private facilities would be commandeered—I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—on very few occasions. I do not think anyone could put an actual number on it.
	The circumstances under which costs can be recovered through the ship's owners are detailed in the schedule. Various definitions that apply to the Bill are contained therein. Fines for non-compliance with a SOSREP's directions are also identified. Disputes between aggrieved parties will lie with the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Session.
	Many disasters at sea involve a vessel on fire. Clause 2 allows an important amendment to section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is concerned with the supplementary powers of fire authorities. At the moment, a fire service's legal authority ends at the low water mark of a coastal fire service. Because of that, there have been problems recently. It has been extremely difficult or even impossible for a coastal fire service to recover its costs for fighting a fire on board a ship in an estuary, a harbour or out at sea.
	Coastal fire services have added burdens in that their personnel have to be highly trained to deal with ship fires. Obviously, that requires special skills and equipment and can be even more dangerous than fighting a terrestrial fire. Because of the difficulties that I have outlined, the number of coastal fire services willing to train personnel to deal with those incidents is declining. My Bill is intended to halt or even to reverse that decline by making it far easier for those services to recover their costs outside the borders of their current legal authority. At a recent meeting of the offshore firefighting working group of the Department for Transport, it was reported that only 10 fire brigades are still prepared to consider providing offshore firefighting services. That is very serious.
	Subsection (2) of clause 2 amends section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act to put it beyond doubt that a fire authority may use its brigade for purposes other than firefighting in its area, in the area of another fire authority or at sea especially. Subsection (3) amends that section to include a provision that gives fire authorities in England and Wales and in the Scilly Isles power to recover costs they incur in fighting fires at sea outside any fire authority area. A fire at sea could be beyond territorial limits, perhaps on a ship or an offshore installation such as an oil rig or pontoon.
	Clause 3 refers to schedules 2 and 3, which cover the minor and consequential amendments to the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 that will follow should the Bill be enacted.
	Clause 4 covers commencement of the Act and clause 5 its extent; clause 6 gives its short title.
	To summarise, the Bill proposes to confer on the Secretary of State for Transport powers to give directions to the owners of certain facilities used by ships, such as berths, wharves, jetties and so on, to make those facilities available to reduce or prevent pollution and safety hazards caused by ships, and to allow fire authorities to make a charge for firefighting services carried out at sea outside the area of every fire authority.
	I hope that I have convinced right hon. and hon. Members of the extreme need for the legislation, and I hope that the House will agree to give my Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.

Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) both on introducing the Bill and on the lucid way in which he expanded on a complicated piece of legislation; I felt much better educated by the end of his speech.
	I apologise in advance to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for having to slip out slightly before the end, because at 3.30 pm I have to be back to meet the owner of a sex club involving what is described as a "group of housemothers". As I opposed the installation of that club in the middle of Twickenham, those people are visiting me to persuade me to be less puritanical—and I hope that the House will agree that that is a suitable reason for my catching my train on time.
	As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I began to appreciate the full significance and importance of what he was saying. In an earlier incarnation, I understood the importance of this subject because I worked in an oil company before becoming an MP, and my time there was framed by two major disasters. One of those was the Exxon Valdez, which not only did enormous damage to the coast of Alaska and its wildlife but virtually killed off, in terms of capitalisation, what at the time was the world's largest company—Exxon, which almost sank as a result of the disaster. Shortly before I left the company there was the Piper Alpha disaster, and the terrible loss of life associated with that.
	Both those events were reminders of the enormous capacity for damage and loss of life as a result of maritime accidents and the importance of dealing with such matters in a preventive way. One of the key points that emerged from the presentation by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East was the way in which the authorities have always reacted to disasters. It was in the aftermath of the Braer disaster, and also of the Piper Alpha disaster, that new regulations and procedures were introduced. It was entirely proper to react in that way, but the lesson to learn is that it is better to deal with such problems in anticipation than in retrospect. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is therefore helpful, in that it provides a framework for dealing with such possibilities before they happen rather than after.
	I picked up from the hon. Gentleman's speech the fact that the Bill will make three fairly substantial contributions to the law. First, by clearing away some bureaucratic legislative obstacles, it will help to allow a rapid reaction to disasters. A point that he made in the context of the recent disaster off the coasts of France and Spain is that speed is essential: hours, let alone days, are crucial. Everything possible should be done to ensure that there will be no territorial arbitration and no boundary disputes, so that problems can be dealt with rapidly. If the Bill helps in that respect, it will be admirable.
	The second point that the hon. Gentleman made is important too. He reminded us that the existing framework of fire legislation is somewhat restrictive and archaic. Several people, including the Government Whip on duty today, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), have campaigned to have the fire service regulations updated, because they are restrictive and narrow and prevent the fire service from reacting with the flexibility and speed that would be desirable. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East correctly explained, there are difficulties with the extra-territorial duties of highly specialised firefighting services. Those are not covered by existing legislation and it is appropriate that we should deal with them.
	The Bill makes a third valuable contribution by addressing the issue of funding. We know that fire services are severely stretched financially for a variety of reasons, including pensions. Anything that they are not required to do in a narrow mandatory way will tend to be passed up. I was struck by the information that only 12 fire services can cope with offshore disasters. The principle of fire services recouping costs needs to be treated with care. A few weeks ago, I saw the film "Gangs of New York". It was a reminder of how the fire service used to be funded in the free-for-all days of the 19th century, when competing fire services would turn up and put out the fire depending on whether a suitable amount of cash was available. We do not want to return to those purely market principles of dealing with fires. None the less, the principle of recoupment in limited circumstances, especially if they involve a fire outside territorial waters, is sensible and prudent. It would ensure that fire services are properly reimbursed. There are admirable reasons for pursuing the Bill. I give it my full support and hope that it makes progress.

John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on introducing the Bill. Just over a year ago, I was lucky enough to introduce a private Member's Bill which also dealt with marine issues. Sadly, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill foundered on the rocks in another place. I wish the hon. Gentleman better luck.
	Conservative Members believe that the Government must do everything possible to protect our environment from pollution damage. Some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world lie close to the British coast and it is imperative that the necessary contingency plans for dealing with marine incidents are in place. That is why we broadly welcome the provisions.
	I see from the front page of the excellent explanatory notes accompanying the Bill that they were provided by the Department for Transport with the consent of the promoting Member. I infer from that that the Government not only broadly welcome the Bill, but positively support it. If that is the case, why are the provisions in the form of a private Member's Bill rather than Government legislation? The Minister and I are serving on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. Although we would have been denied the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, the provisions could have been included in that. The same was true of provisions in the recent Aviation (Offences) Bill. Although I do not want to carp too much on that, we should remember the devastation that was caused late last year by the sinking of the Prestige. If the Bill falters on the reef elsewhere, I hope that the Government will consider introducing the proposals in Government time.
	Clause 2 would allow fire authorities to charge for firefighting services at sea outside the area of every fire authority. A major research project, the "Sea of Change", was launched last month to review the response by UK fire brigades to incidents at sea. The primary aim of that project team is to research and submit recommendations to the project board, which will co-ordinate the implementation of a local authority fire brigade's integrated response to firefighting, chemical incidents and rescue at sea.
	The project has been acknowledged by the United Nations International Maritime Organisation, and expressions of interest in it and its outcomes have been received from Canada, Sweden and Germany. I mention this simply to point out that extensive and thorough work is now being undertaken on the role of fire brigades in marine incidents. Perhaps it would have been slightly more sensible to wait for the project's findings to become a little clearer, so that we could benefit from that research in considering legislative provision.
	Figures show that the number of recorded oil tanker accidents off the UK coast has risen from 17 in 1992 to 22 in 1999. Those are the incidents that capture the headlines and the public imagination, but it is worth bearing it in mind that it is operational pollution—day-to-day operational incidents or illegal discharges—that accounts for more than 73 per cent. of incidents. Most of those day-to-day incidents occur in harbour and estuarine areas, most of which are environmentally extremely sensitive.

Shona McIsaac: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's mentioning that point. My constituency has large oil refineries, and oil tankers offload into the pipeline, but the adjacent Humber estuary also contains areas of special scientific interest. Many local residents fear the potential for accidents, so I welcome the Bill.

John Randall: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I know that she takes a great interest in this issue; indeed, I seem to remember her speaking forcefully on behalf of seals.
	In the aftermath of major incidents such as the Braer in 1993 and the Sea Empress in 1996, there are always loud and distinct calls for action. However, it is important to remember that, alongside the more major incidents, minor ones such as those that the hon. Lady referred to occur each and every day. Given that 90 per cent. of our overseas trade and 7 per cent. of our internal trade is carried by sea, a huge number of ships ply our waters. That gives rise to the potential for a disaster, and we must be prepared for that.
	As was said, the Bill makes provision to confer powers on the Secretary of State to give direction to a person in charge of land next to, or accessible from, UK waters. That is a worthwhile provision, but we should take account of the problem of pollution once it reaches the coast. A key recommendation of the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer disaster, and of the inquiry into the Sea Empress, was for local authorities to have a statutory duty to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents.
	That was mentioned in the National Audit Office report that was published at the end of last year. It states that the Government
	"should consider the case for taking powers to require all coastal local authorities to have up to date oil spill contingency plans consistent with the National Contingency Plans, so that the United Kingdom as a whole is properly prepared to deal with maritime pollution incidents in compliance with international conventions."
	Perhaps I am getting a little old and cynical, but the reason why there is no statutory duty on local authorities to plan for, and to undertake, shoreline clean-ups might be because the Government would have to fund the additional responsibility.
	Raising this issue enables me to highlight current general deficiencies in the resourcing provided for local authority emergency planners, who are often the unseen saviours in the event of a major incident such as an oil spillage on our coastline. They have been short-changed in recent years. They face growing responsibilities, yet they have received no corresponding growth in budget or in recognition.
	Accidents are a product of human fallibility and error. They cannot be subject to absolute prediction or guaranteed prevention. However, measures can be taken to limit the likelihood of occurrence and to mitigate the degrading environmental consequences. Preventive action is the only option for a disease that has no cure. It is all very well for a national authority to look outwards, beyond its frontiers, to international agreements, but such agreements will count for little unless local authorities are able to act effectively.
	The marine ecosystem is a very precious part of our environment; for too long, it has been the Cinderella part of the environment. If a Second Reading is obtained, we will wish this Bill well in its later stages. If it goes to Committee, we will be able to consider its more detailed parts. I hope that it will not founder and that, in time, the Bill will become an Act. If not, I hope that the Government will find sufficient time to introduce legislation, because legislation is needed.

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the slot for this Bill and on the way in which he presented his case. His arguments were well informed and clearly set out—although I would not have expected anything else from him. I noted his long-standing interest in these matters, so it must have given him considerable pleasure to introduce such legislation in the House.
	The Government take safety at sea very seriously and we welcome the proposals in this Bill. Any fire is a frightening experience, but a fire on a ship or installation causes unique problems. The fire can be many miles from shore, a ship can be carrying toxic or explosive cargo, and even the act of fighting the fire can cause a ship to lose buoyancy if hoses are used.
	Ships' crews are trained in the basics of firefighting. However, nothing can replace the benefits of expertise and specialised equipment that professional firefighters can bring to an emergency. The proposals encourage fire authorities to continue to provide their expert and life-saving services, and I welcome that.
	The conferring of powers on the Secretary of State to give directions has been proposed. We saw all too plainly, with the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain, the severe damage that can occur when such a vessel gets into difficulty. That incident has caused enormous devastation to the coasts of Spain and France; it is likely that its effects will be felt long into the future. It can be vital for a stricken ship to have access to the kind of facilities that are available on wharves and jetties, where remedial work can take place. The Secretary of State should be given the power to issue directions to the owners of such facilities.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked how often such interventions would take place. I hope that the need for them would be infrequent. Nevertheless, an incident may be extremely serious and intervention may prevent an enormous amount of pollution from coming on to our shores.

Michael Fabricant: Such proposals risk breaching article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. Has the Minister's Department considered that?

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, for all Bills that come before the House, that issue is considered. The promoter of the Bill will have to consider it as well. The Bill consolidates all the existing provisions to issue directions in a single document, and that, too, is welcome.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East reminded us, the United Kingdom has suffered three of the world's largest recorded oil spills: the Torrey Canyon—his pronunciation was correct. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs, but he was not in the Chamber earlier when the jokes were being made. Opposition Members were making the jokes, not Labour Members, although when we think about crashing and wreckage, the Tory party comes to mind at the moment.
	The Torrey Canyon spillage took place in 1967, with the Braer in 1993 and the Sea Empress in 1996. Indeed, the Sea Empress incident led to Lord Donaldson's recommendation in his "Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control", published in 1999. In at least one case, permission for the use of facilities was refused and the Bill would make good that deficiency, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his opening contribution. We have learned lessons from those major oil pollution incidents and now make it a high priority to reduce the risk of oil spills and to minimise the impact of any spill that occurs.
	My hon. Friend congratulated Department for Transport officials for their work in assisting him. I am pleased that we could offer him that facility for such a worthy measure. I, too, have taken a private Member's Bill on a marine-related matter through the House. Indeed, I was ably assisted by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is now shadow Leader of the House, so it has been interesting to observe his position on such matters during the past few years. Sometimes, the passage of private Members' Bills can be precarious; they rely on mutual support from both sides of the House. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that we shall give him every assistance in getting the Bill through.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point, who is unfortunately no longer in his place, made some good points about the powers of the SOSREP to instruct ports to take ships in, although such a facility would be used only rarely.
	I, too, congratulate our SOSREP, Robin Middleton. He is astonishingly able and extremely well thought of in the marine world. The difference between the approach taken in the United Kingdom and that taken in most other countries is that our representative is independent of the political process. Although he is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State, he can act independently.
	Questions were asked about the amount of goods that travel by sea around our coast, or to and from the country. I am informed that more than 96 per cent. of the weight of goods going to and from this country are transported by sea. That point is often not generally understood by the public. Such transportation is usually quiet and safe, but when a disaster happens it has an enormous impact.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has managed to see the sex shop owner. At one stage, I felt that he was at risk of giving us too much information. None the less, he raised several points about the inadequacy of current legislation and I thank him for his support.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked why the provisions could not have been included in another Bill, although the Opposition are always complaining about the size of Bills. The matter was originally going to be dealt with in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, but we have not yet found parliamentary time for that, so we are happy to support this measure.
	I give the Bill my full support and I hope that it receives the full support of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 April.

CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 March.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AMENDMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 May.

VILLAGE HALLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Oliver Letwin: I should begin by warning the Minister that this debate, if we are successful in the forthcoming ballots, is merely the beginning of a sequence of similar debates that will emerge from Members of all parties in Dorset, and increasingly, I hope, from rural Members around the country. Our rough intention is to keep holding debates until the point at which the Minister, who I know has a considerable amount of patience, nevertheless eventually loses patience and urges his officials to do something about the problem.
	We do not intend to pursue this campaign, however, in any of the vigorous ways that some other campaigns that currently afflict the Minister are being conducted. I assure him that there will be no demonstrations to which he will be subject, other than the occasional and regular Adjournment debate.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving good warning of his intentions. In the same spirit, will he recognise in his remarks the increased support that this Government have been giving to village halls, and the way in which we have initiated discussion with those who promote the work of village halls to see what more can be done in future?

Oliver Letwin: Oddly enough, the answer to that is no, as that is not the impression that we have on the ground. I shall certainly welcome the second part of the Minister's remarks, however, in relation to improvements that may come about through discussion.
	First, I should explain why we seek to raise the issue of village halls at such a time, when we are faced with the exigencies of the Iraq situation and terrible problems for the Government in law and order, public services and public spending. Why should we concentrate on such an apparently minute issue as village halls? The reason is extremely clear. There is always something that is ostensibly more important and more urgent than village halls. On that principle, over many years, Britain's sewers declined—there was always something more important than dealing with the funding of Britain's once splendid Victorian sewer system. Chancellors of the Exchequer always found something more pressing, and, with the effluxion of time, after about 100 years, the sewers were in a most dreadful condition, as nobody had done anything about them. Village halls stand in danger of being treated in the same sort of way. They are never the most urgent item, so there is a dreadful possibility that they will receive no attention at all.
	The second question that I need to address is this: why do village halls matter? Someone might reasonably ask: why do we not concentrate on the dreadful problems of our inner city estates, where drugs are rife, gangs control the estates, pimps organise young girls into prostitution and many people find themselves virtually imprisoned in their high-rise flats as a result of the horrors that afflict them when they go out? Why do we concentrate on villages and village halls when the average village is in so much better a condition than the average inner-city estate? Even the worst village is in much better condition than the worst inner-city estate.
	Those of us who care about the promotion of the neighbourly society—as I have preached for the past 18 months in another capacity, it is critical that the nation take steps to reintroduce the neighbourly society in inner-city estates, where it has all but crumbled—know that it is important that we do not allow a slow erosion of that society in places where it still vibrant. It is important that we do not create, slowly and unwittingly, problems in areas that are not at present a problem while we solve, at great expense and with great difficulty, the severe problems in areas that are a problem. Villages fall into the category of areas that, on the whole, display a vibrant neighbourly society, and we must not let it diminish or disappear.
	To have a neighbourly society in a village, it is important that the inhabitants know and talk to one another, and understand enough about one another not to fear one another but to regard one another as good neighbours. To encourage that kind of society it is important that there are places where people can naturally meet and talk. The tradition in most villages in my constituency in West Dorset and many other rural areas is that such conversations go on in the pub, the village shop, outside the church and in the village hall. The Minister is as aware as I am—I do not blame him for this any more than he will blame me—that pubs have often disappeared for want of custom as habits have changed. Pubs that serve food survive, but those that do not broadly do not. The Minister will also be aware—neither he nor I is responsible for this either—that church attendance has diminished greatly in the past 50 to 100 years. There is nothing that the Government can be expected to do about that.
	There is however something about which the Government could have done something, although I do not blame the Minister personally or his Department. Some Departments have disregarded the policy of Peter Lilley—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I mean my right hon. Friend for Hertford and wherever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman means the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Oliver Letwin: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Social Security, he steadfastly refused to remove the arrangement whereby benefits were paid through post offices. The disregard of that long refusal by the relevant Departments under the present Government has led to an accelerated collapse of rural post offices and the shops associated with them. As footfall has diminished, those shops have become increasingly non-viable. I blame the Government for that, but not the Minister.
	Steps have now been taken to improve that situation, yet we all know that in many cases, alas, they will not be successful. In too many cases, we are therefore left with only one village institution, at least in villages that do not have a primary school—the village hall. It plays a special role, because it is the place where social capital is built, as it is a site of active participation. People do not go there to be passive recipients as if they were in front of a television set, but go there to act together, sometimes literally—they may act together in a play—or sing together, engage in auctions to raise money for good causes, have meetings about mutual concerns, or allow their Member of Parliament, as I have been allowed in various villages, to hold a surgery and meet people with particular concerns.
	In all these respects, the village hall functions as the centrepiece of the neighbourly society of the village. Its importance has risen rather than declined with the other changes that I mentioned, so it is of the utmost importance that village halls should be supported.
	The Minister said he hoped that I would acknowledge the massive efforts that the Government have made to support village halls. For quite a long period, village hall renovation was the order of the day, because lottery funding was available in significant quantities to support bids for the renovation of village halls. I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) will echo that, as will the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who would have liked to be present and who shares our concerns. Each of us would recognise that for quite a long period, many of our villages were able to obtain funds from the lottery to renew village halls. All over West Dorset there are village halls that testify to the success of that enlightened regime, which persisted into the early years of the present Government.
	Now, alas, we find that although it has never been officially acknowledged, the lottery has been virtually closed to applications for the renovation of village halls, at least in my constituency.

Alun Michael: indicated dissent.

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the Minister will explain why he dissents from that. I shall send him a record of the applications that have been made and the responses—

Annette Brooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that with the shrinkage of funds, the applications have become more complicated, and there is a feeling that the goal posts are continually being moved? Perhaps businesses can cope with that, but for volunteers in villages, with all their other activities, that is enormously off-putting for them to carry on. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are looking for incentives for people to keep going and keep their villages alive, as they want to do.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady is right. There is undeniably huge complexity. The goal posts do seem to change; the criteria seem to change. In part, that causes a problem because of the difficulties to which she refers—those of keeping up with the need to change the nature of the applications. In part, I fear, the criteria have been altered precisely to push money towards the inner cities. Although I utterly recognise the claim of the inner cities to public funds, I do not believe that measures that effectively exclude many village hall applications are justified.

Alun Michael: I can deal with those points in my response, but it would be unfair not to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been an increase in the amount of finance available to village halls over recent years. I am concerned about targeting and assisting with the quality of applications, which is sometimes a problem. However, the amount of money available to village halls has increased.

Oliver Letwin: All I can tell the Minister is that this is one of those strange events in which the appearance that he presents and the reality as we observe it on the ground appear to differ. There may be many explanations for that, but people who make applications have been informed by officials of his Department and by staff at the lottery that those applications are not likely to succeed, as they are no longer the flavour of the month. If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of what is being said, he needs to be aware of it. I will present him with a full dossier of evidence about what happened some years back, when village hall applications were repeatedly successful in Dorset, and what has happened in the last year or two, when they have not been successful. He will find it difficult to reconcile that with the general picture that he has probably genuinely been presented with. I do not know what the explanation for the difference is, but whatever it is, the upshot is that in Dorset today it is extraordinarily difficult to raise money. The message coming back to us has been, "Let local funds provide."
	In the couple of minutes before I sit down, I wish to point out that that strikes people, at least those in Dorset, as a strange and ironical response. Because of the exigencies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, Dorset is among those shire counties throughout England that have been forced to raise council tax by an enormous proportion simply to tread water—a matter about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have both lobbied Ministers.
	There is no local money currently available for village halls, except in tiny quantities, and it cannot be a substitute for the lottery. I believe that the lottery is an appropriate funding source for village halls. If the Minister knows something about the amounts available and if he can do something to change the situation so that that money can be available once again in Dorset, at least, and perhaps other rural counties too, we would be profoundly grateful—it is certainly needed.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate, partly because I feel passionately about the issue but not least because the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) always brings a serious and mature note to debates in the Chamber. I always find it a pleasure to respond when he initiates an Adjournment debate. It is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of responding to him.
	I therefore chide the right hon. Gentleman more gently than I would some of his colleagues for not paying tribute to the Government for the increased help that is being given to village halls. I cannot resist pointing out that it is a bit rich for someone who is a member of the shadow Cabinet of a party that wants to cut public spending by up to 20 per cent. to seek an increase in funding for village halls. The leader of the Conservative party endorsed that as "a rational target"—I think that those were his words. If that £80 billion cut were made, there would be little room for increased spending on village halls.

Oliver Letwin: I certainly shall not prolong things—I do not want to turn this into a cat and dog act—but I should point out that there has never been the slightest suggestion by the Conservative party or, indeed, the Labour party that the total amount available from the lottery should be reduced because, of course, the Government do not control that amount, and the only question is how is it distributed.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman naturally wishes to narrow his remarks to the lottery, but if that massive £80 billion cut in public expenditure were made there would be precious little left for anything else.
	I have recently met Diana Britten, the chairman of the Community Fund, and we discussed how to involve the fund in a series of meetings, led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to quantify the funding needs of village halls and to determine how best to meet those needs. My concern is that, although a lot of money is being spent, there are certainly problems locally with individual village halls.
	That is why, when I attended the annual general meeting of the association representing village halls a few weeks ago, we were speaking through the opposite ends of a telescope—perhaps I that is not the right phrase, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean. It was almost as though we were communicating in two languages. The issue is how to ensure that real need can be recognised, that applications are of a high quality, that financing can be targeted and that the job is done properly.
	As the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to refer specifically to lottery funds, it is worth pointing out that, in 1996–97, less than £1 million in Community Fund grants went to village halls—£956,397 to be pedantically precise. By 2001–02, the figure had gone up to £17,365,436, and, to be slightly less pedantic, that is roughly a 1,800 per cent. rise. I acknowledge that the amount in 1996–97 was less than the previous year. I have chosen that year simply because it is the pre-election year and it is a reasonable comparison. In 1995–96, the figure was just over £2 million, so even if that year is chosen for the comparison, a massive increase in finances is going in. Despite the fact that smaller sums are available to be distributed from the lottery, the amount going to village halls is about 7 per cent., which remains as it has been since the earliest days of the lottery. The Government support greater expenditure on village halls than has ever been provided from national financial resources in the past. I refer to my experience as a county youth and community officer some years ago on the old South Glamorgan council. The amount of money then available for village halls was minimal, which led to problems of targeting.
	To put the matter in context, the Government are doing more than any previous Government to help rural communities and economies. We have not only published the rural White Paper but created the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with its focus on rural affairs, rural communities and rural economies. For the first time this year, we have a specific public service agreement target that focuses on improving economies and services in rural areas. We are making great progress on rural proofing, which engages Ministers and officials across Whitehall to ensure that the needs of rural areas are targeted. That is an example of co-operation across government.

Oliver Letwin: The Minister has moved off the subject of village halls—briefly, I hope, but I wish to bring him back to the topic. No one denies that the sums increased in the years up to 2001–02. For all I know, they may even have increased in 2002–03. That will be the result of applications that were made some years ago. The question is not the level that is being disbursed at present, but the extent to which people making applications now find that their applications have no prospect of success.

Alun Michael: The fact that far greater finance is going into village halls and has done consistently at an increasing rate over the past few years is certainly a salient point in responding to the claim that village halls are somehow being strangled of funds. I will be quite happy to examine any evidence that the right hon. Gentleman can provide from his area. Dorset may face a specific problem. Perhaps it did rather too well in the past—I do not know. However, we should consider the matter objectively so that we agree about the facts and can then debate policy in an informed manner. That was the flavour of my discussions with the association representing village halls.
	Although I want to focus on the position of village halls, I merely wanted to place in context how much the Government are doing to treat seriously the difficult issues of helping the economies and communities in villages across the country. I was at an academic seminar this morning that examined how we identify the social problems of rural areas. That is a big challenge. There are about 8,700 parish councils and about 15,000 parishes, some of which do not have councils. That is an enormous number of small communities, given that, in an urban context, one can target a comparatively small number of highly visible, identifiable and concentrated aspects of social exclusion. The problem of targeting rural areas is different and somehow more challenging even if the concentration of problems in urban areas makes their position appear more problematic.
	We certainly recognise the vital role that village halls play in rural communities as multi-purpose community centres and as hubs for village life. However, I should repeat that the village hall is not the only body to play that role. The right hon. Gentleman referred to church halls, and some places have a local British Legion and a number of community meeting places. Indeed, there may be over-provision in some small communities, which may lead to competition for funds. That is why targeting becomes an important issue. Village halls must be considered in the context of wider community provision at the most local level.
	We support the development of active local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways. The idea that the village hall is a hub for social activity and social provision fits well with our policy objectives. There is an increasing need for village halls to link their provision with that of commercial and voluntary organisations. There should be joint provision of services across public, voluntary and commercial services.
	The available evidence suggests an increase in the number of village halls and meeting places. The Countryside Agency's rural survey of 2000 reported that 85 per cent. of parishes had one in that year, while 72 per cent. had one in 1997. That is probably mostly due to the impact of lottery-funded grant programmes. The statistics must, of course, be treated with a degree of caution, as there have been definitional changes. I am not convinced that we are entirely certain of the picture across the country.
	It is difficult to generalise about funding needs—although there is a tendency to do it, as the right hon. Gentleman did in his introduction. The Countryside Agency's research identified a need for less expenditure on the buildings themselves and more on the services and activities involved. Through the community services grant, we are focusing our support on what goes on inside village halls. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn, however, that some of the correspondence I receive expresses the opposite view.
	The Government are helping to support community activity, but buildings matter too. We are aware of widespread concern about the lack of funds for rebuilding or renovating village halls. I do not think, though, that the problem is entirely a national one. While I have no means of knowing the position in Dorset, in some areas local authorities have withdrawn their support, thinking "This can be left to the Community Fund and the lottery." Traditionally, local finance from local authorities, parish councils and voluntary subscriptions has constituted the most important element of support for village halls.

Annette Brooke: Dorset county council is strongly committed to village halls and it does provide funds, but in the case of a very small village with perhaps 300 residents it really is not an option to use parish council tax to raise sufficient funds even to make the improvements necessary to meet disability requirements in the near future.

Alun Michael: That should be scrutinised at local level, but facilities are certainly available to parish councils enabling them to help village halls, even if the parish itself does not run the village hall. For instance, public loans can be used to finance improvements that can then be funded over a period by means of rental income and the use of facilities that could not be used had the improvements not been made.
	We must see this as a business plan that takes account of the availability of direct funds from parish councils when they make some contribution, voluntary funds, funds from local authorities and funds that might be available through loans and then financed from income, as well as the small amounts that may be contributed by the Countryside Agency or the money resulting from lottery applications. It is unrealistic to assume that the only source of finance is the lottery, and to focus entirely on applications to the Community Fund. Even if Community Fund money increased year on year, there would never be enough to finance the whole programme.
	As I have said, traditionally the funding of village halls has been very much a local issue. Only in comparatively recent years have significant funds been contributed at national level. If we start from the premise that such funds, including lottery funds, are used and targeted effectively, and that they can be used best if spread across the country as fairly as possible, that must involve making the best possible use of funds available from local sources as well—local authorities, parish councils or voluntary organisations.
	Let me return to a point that I made earlier—
	The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at Three o'clock.